remove_nodeDelete a node and all connected edges from a YAML or JSON graph, with changes saved immediately to the file.
Remove a node and every edge connected to it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | Current graph file; null when the graph is in memory only | |
| removedNode | Yes | ||
| removedEdges | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is already known. The description usefully adds that all connected edges are also removed, which is non-obvious behavior beyond the annotation. However it doesn't disclose whether auth is required or whether removal is reversible/undoable.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and efficiently communicates the cascade effect. No waste.
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 needn't be explained. But for a destructive operation with an undocumented required id parameter, the description leaves gaps about parameter meaning and any preconditions.
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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter 'id' is undocumented in the schema. The description does not clarify what the id refers to (node id vs other identifier). Baseline 4 for 0 params doesn't apply since there is 1 param; with no schema docs the description should compensate but doesn't.
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 (remove) and resource (node), plus the cascade effect on connected edges. Distinguishable from remove_edge, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling.
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 over remove_edge or before/after other operations. The cascade behavior is stated but no when-to-use or alternatives context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.