Permanently remove a named graph and all its triples. Run backup_dataset beforehand if the data matters.
Delete a named graph and everything in it. There is no undo.
Run backup_dataset first if the contents matter.
A 404 means the graph was already empty, which on TDB2 means it did not exist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| graph | Yes | Graph IRI to delete. | |
| dataset | No | Dataset name. Defaults to the configured one. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares irreversibility ('no undo'), states the destruction scope, and explains the 404 outcome as an idempotency signal (already-empty/nonexistent graph does not error). It leaves permissions/auth requirements and any partial-failure behavior unstated, which is the only notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive consequence and scoping, then the backup precaution, then error semantics. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-param destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns an agent needs: irreversibility, destruction scope, a prerequisite, and the meaning of a 404. Only auth/permission expectations and any response payload details are absent, which keeps it just short of complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters ('graph' as graph IRI, 'dataset' with its default) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or naming detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb (delete/drop) and resource (a named graph) and immediately states scope: 'everything in it.' It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like delete_dataset (dataset-level) and write_graph (non-destructive write), so an agent can select it without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives a concrete precondition — 'Run backup_dataset first if the contents matter' — naming the sibling to use beforehand, which is genuinely actionable routing guidance. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with delete_dataset for the dataset-level case, so it is clear context rather than exhaustive when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.