Skip to main content
Glama
Unilytics MCP Server

Unilytics MCP Server

Official

kb_delete

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently delete a Knowledge Base and all its documents; this action is irreversible and returns an error if the Knowledge Base no longer exists.

Instructions

Permanently delete a Knowledge Base and all its documents. Irreversible. A Knowledge Base that is already gone returns error "not_found".

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "collection_id": "<collection_id>"
    },
    "name": "kb_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes
collection_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / config
      Removed value: -{
      -  "default": null,
      -  "title": "config",
      -  "type": "string"
      -}
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the cascade to all documents, the irreversibility, and the concrete not_found error for an already-deleted KB. It does not cover required permissions or the response payload, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action and the irreversibility warning, with no padding or redundant restatement of the annotations.

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?

For a two-parameter destructive tool, the risk profile and error behavior are well covered, but the meaning of both required identifiers is left entirely undocumented, which is the main gap before invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the burden, yet it never explains project_id or collection_id. An agent can only infer that collection_id names the KB and project_id its project.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (delete a Knowledge Base) plus its scope: the KB and all of its documents. This clearly separates it from document-level siblings such as kb_delete_document.

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 'Permanently... Irreversible' framing implies this is the tool for removing an entire knowledge base, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no named alternative for deleting a single document or a file.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools