remove_edgeDelete an edge from a YAML or JSON graph by its ID, updating the file immediately so edits stay live in the companion app.
Remove an edge by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | Current graph file; null when the graph is in memory only | |
| removedEdge | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
destructiveHint=true already declares this is an irreversible mutation, so the safety profile is covered by annotations. The description adds nothing beyond that—no note about whether the edge id must exist, whether removal cascades, or what happens on failure.
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?
A single terse sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves little content to structure.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a destructive mutation tool the description is thin: it omits any note on id obligations, failure behavior, or relationship to add_edge/edit_edge, leaving real gaps.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; 'by id' only weakly indicates the single argument identifies the edge. No format, source, or lookup guidance is provided for the id.
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 clear verb+resource: removing an edge, identified by id. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like remove_node, edit_edge, or remove_style, which an agent must infer.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus edit_edge (for modifying) or remove_node (for nodes). The agent gets no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions to route between the removal tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.