Skip to main content
Glama
ragflow-kb-mcp
by feci

ragflow_delete_chat_sessions

Destructive

Permanently deletes specified chat assistant sessions by chat ID and session IDs to remove unwanted conversation records.

Instructions

Permanently delete sessions of a chat assistant.

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": {
      "chat_id": "<chat_id>",
      "session_ids": "<session_ids>"
    },
    "name": "ragflow_delete_chat_sessions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chat_idYesChat assistant ID
session_idsYesIDs of the sessions to delete

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the word 'Permanently' adds confirmation that deletion is irreversible, which is real added context. However, it says nothing about cascading effects (are the session's messages removed too?), required permissions, or whether partial success across multiple session_ids is possible.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably over-compressed given the destructive nature of the operation.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a multi-ID destructive tool, the description omits what happens on partial failure and whether nested data is removed — gaps an agent would care about.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — both chat_id and session_ids are documented in the schema, so the description adds nothing beyond the baseline. It could have noted whether sessions must belong to the given chat or whether mixing chats errors out.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('delete sessions of a chat assistant') and clarifies the parent scope with 'chat_id'. This implicitly distinguishes it from ragflow_delete_chat / ragflow_delete_chats, which destroy the assistant itself, though the sibling is never named.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this versus ragflow_delete_chat, ragflow_delete_chats, or ragflow_delete_chat_message. The agent must infer from the name alone that this targets conversation sessions rather than the assistant or individual messages.

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