server-memory

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

delete_relations

Delete specific relations from the knowledge graph by providing the source, target, and relation type for each relation.

Instructions

Delete relations from the knowledge graph.

Each item needs: from (str), to (str), relationType (str).

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": {
      "relations": "<relations>"
    },
    "name": "delete_relations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`relations`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as permanence, cascading effects, or error handling. It only states the action and parameter format, which is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is very concise, consisting of two sentences that first state the purpose and then explain the parameter format. No unnecessary words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description is fairly complete for the parameter structure but lacks context about behavioral aspects like error states or idempotency. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but behavioral transparency is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema provides an open array of objects with no property definitions. The description adds the required structure (from, to, relationType), compensating for the 0% schema coverage. However, it does not specify whether these are required or optional.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action (delete) and resource (relations from the knowledge graph). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_relations or delete_entities, which could be clarified.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, edge cases, or conditions for use.

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