redraft

by KaelinGraf

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

delete_edge

Remove a typed edge between design nodes by specifying source, destination, and relationship type.

Instructions

Remove an edge.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "src": "<src>",
      "dst": "<dst>",
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "delete_edge"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dst`	Yes
`src`	Yes
`type`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`existed`	No
`orphaned_inbound_edges`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

D1.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not that removal is destructive/irreversible, what happens to the destination node if the edge was its only link, whether permissions are required, or whether the call is idempotent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is one short sentence, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than disciplined editing; there is no front-loaded scope or consequence information for an agent to act on.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no parameter documentation, this is wholly inadequate. The existence of an output schema covers return values, but nothing covers the semantics of the inputs or the effects of the call.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for three required parameters (src, dst, type), and the description adds nothing. In particular the meaning of 'type' (the nine edge relationship kinds) and the directionality of src vs dst are left entirely to inference from bare property names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Remove an edge" restates the tool name almost verbatim (delete_edge), adding no scope, no target graph, and no differentiation from sibling mutators like delete_node, create_edge, or dangling_edges. It is a tautology rather than a stated purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. delete_node, update_node, or whether edges should instead be superseded), and no prerequisites. The agent is given no basis for choosing this over sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.