Skip to main content
Glama
T1nker-1220

Knowledge Graph Memory Server

by T1nker-1220

delete_relations

Remove specific connections between entities in the knowledge graph to maintain accurate relationship data and eliminate outdated or incorrect associations.

Instructions

Delete multiple relations from the knowledge graph

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
relationsYesAn array of relations to delete

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function in KnowledgeGraphManager that deletes the specified relations from the graph by filtering them out and saving the updated graph.
    async deleteRelations(relations: Relation[]): Promise<void> {
      const graph = await this.loadGraph();
      graph.relations = graph.relations.filter(r => !relations.some(delRelation =>
        r.from === delRelation.from &&
        r.to === delRelation.to &&
        r.relationType === delRelation.relationType
      ));
      await this.saveGraph(graph);
    }
  • The input schema defining the expected parameters for the delete_relations tool: an array of relations with from, to, and relationType.
    inputSchema: {
      type: "object",
      properties: {
        relations: {
          type: "array",
          items: {
            type: "object",
            properties: {
              from: { type: "string", description: "The name of the entity where the relation starts" },
              to: { type: "string", description: "The name of the entity where the relation ends" },
              relationType: { type: "string", description: "The type of the relation" },
            },
            required: ["from", "to", "relationType"],
          },
          description: "An array of relations to delete"
        },
      },
      required: ["relations"],
    },
  • index.ts:1039-1061 (registration)
    Registration of the delete_relations tool in the list of tools returned by ListToolsRequestSchema.
    {
      name: "delete_relations",
      description: "Delete multiple relations from the knowledge graph",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          relations: {
            type: "array",
            items: {
              type: "object",
              properties: {
                from: { type: "string", description: "The name of the entity where the relation starts" },
                to: { type: "string", description: "The name of the entity where the relation ends" },
                relationType: { type: "string", description: "The type of the relation" },
              },
              required: ["from", "to", "relationType"],
            },
            description: "An array of relations to delete"
          },
        },
        required: ["relations"],
      },
    },
  • index.ts:1235-1237 (registration)
    The switch case in CallToolRequestSchema handler that routes calls to delete_relations to the KnowledgeGraphManager method.
    case "delete_relations":
      await knowledgeGraphManager.deleteRelations(args.relations as Relation[]);
      return { content: [{ type: "text", text: "Relations deleted successfully" }] };

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits, but it only says 'Delete' without mentioning consequences such as irreversibility, partial failure handling, or permissions. For a mutating operation, this is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information.

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 tool is simple with one well-specified parameter and no output schema, so the core purpose is covered. However, behavioral details like error handling, atomicity, or effects on related entities are absent, which leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema fully describes the 'relations' parameter and its nested properties (from, to, relationType), so the description adds little beyond what is already structured. The phrase 'multiple' aligns with the array type but does not provide extra meaning.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states a specific action ('Delete') on a specific resource ('relations'), and the plural 'multiple relations' distinguishes this from sibling tools like delete_entities and delete_observations. It is concise and unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for deleting one or more relations, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It provides only minimal contextual guidance.

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