Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ragflow-kb-mcp

ragflow-kb-mcp

by feci
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

ragflow_delete_chats

Destructive

Permanently deletes multiple RAGFlow chat assistants using their IDs to clean up no-longer-needed conversations.

Instructions

Permanently delete several chat assistants.

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_ids": "<chat_ids>"
    },
    "name": "ragflow_delete_chats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chat_idsYesIDs of the chat assistants to delete

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so 'Permanently' largely restates the safety profile. The description adds no new behavioral context: it doesn't say whether associated chat sessions and messages are cascade-deleted, whether there is any undo, or what happens to IDs that don't exist.

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?

One short sentence, action and object front-loaded, zero filler. Every word (including 'Permanently' and 'several') carries meaning.

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 structurally simple (one required param, full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema), so the description is close to sufficient. Still, for a destructive bulk operation the agent would benefit from knowing about cascade effects on sessions/messages and partial-failure behavior, neither of which is covered anywhere else.

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 coverage is 100% and the single chat_ids parameter is already documented as 'IDs of the chat assistants to delete'. The description contributes only the plural framing; no constraints on batch size, duplicates, or partial-failure semantics are added.

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 ('Permanently delete ... chat assistants') and the quantifier 'several' signals the batch variant versus the single-item sibling ragflow_delete_chat. It stops short of naming that sibling, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

'Several' implies this is the bulk path, but the description never states when to use it over ragflow_delete_chat, whether a mixed batch aborts on the first invalid ID, or any prerequisite like ownership/admin scope. Usage has to be inferred from the plural wording alone.

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