delete_knowledge_basePermanently delete a knowledge base to remove its context from agents. Use when retiring obsolete or unused knowledge; this action cannot be undone.
Permanently delete a knowledge base. Agents referencing it lose that context. Not reversible.
Requires scope knowledge_bases:write.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The record id, e.g. "6a96a3ead6e886d42462dd3e". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: deletion is permanent, not reversible, and agents referencing the knowledge base lose that context. It also discloses a required authorization scope. This goes well beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations.
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?
The description is three short sentences, with the core action front-loaded. Each sentence adds distinct value: what it does, the consequence, and the access requirement. There is no filler or repetition.
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 single-parameter delete operation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, permanence, impact, and authorization. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide whether to invoke the tool and understand the result.
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%, with the id parameter already described and given an example. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but that is acceptable because the schema fully documents the only parameter.
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 knowledge base.' It goes beyond a simple restatement by describing the consequence that agents referencing it lose context, and explicitly says it is not reversible. This clearly distinguishes it from update_knowledge_base and other knowledge base operations.
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?
The description gives clear context for when to use the tool, emphasizing that deletion is permanent and affects agents that reference the knowledge base. It also provides the required scope, knowledge_bases:write. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but for a delete operation the context is strong enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.