Permanently deletes a collection and all its vectors, returning an ok status or error so you can manage collection lifecycle and remove obsolete data.
Permanently delete a collection and all of its vectors. Returns a result object with ok status or error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collection | Yes | The name of the collection to delete. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that deletion is permanent and destroys all vectors, and it briefly describes the return shape. It omits permissions/auth requirements, failure behavior for missing collections, and whether confirmation is needed.
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?
Two compact sentences with zero waste. The destructive scope is front-loaded before the return value note.
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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential scope and result shape. It still leaves out prerequisites, safety expectations, and edge-case behavior, which are important for an irreversible collection-level operation.
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%, so the single 'collection' parameter is already fully documented. The description adds no format, naming, or validation semantics beyond what the schema provides, making baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a collection') and clarifies scope ('and all of its vectors'), which helps distinguish it from hyperspace_delete_points. It stops short of explicitly naming siblings, so it is not a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as hyperspace_delete_points or hyperspace_freeze_collection, nor any prerequisites or confirmation requirements for an irreversible operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.