Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
NetworkX Graph MCP Server

NetworkX Graph MCP Server

by inbarajaldrin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

delete_state_graph

Remove a state graph from the NetworkX Graph MCP Server by specifying its graph ID to manage memory and clean up stored graph structures.

Instructions

Delete a state graph.

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": {
      "graph_id": "<graph_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_state_graph"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
graph_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the action is destructive ('Delete') but doesn't clarify if deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects on related data. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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?

The description is extremely concise with a single clear sentence. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

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, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address critical context like deletion consequences, error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 for its single parameter 'graph_id', and the tool description adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what a graph_id is, how to obtain it, or format requirements. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a state graph'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_edge' or 'remove_node' that also perform deletion operations on related graph components.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the graph must be empty), relationships to other deletion tools, or what happens to associated nodes/edges when a graph is deleted.

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