Remove all chunks and embeddings for a given document path from Mimir's memory, returning the count cleared; no-op if the path was never loaded.
Remove all chunks and embeddings for a given document path. Returns {"cleared": N}. No-op if the path was never loaded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states the effect (removing chunks and embeddings), the return shape ({"cleared": N}), and idempotency (no-op if never loaded), but it omits permissions, reversibility, and whether the source document itself is affected.
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?
Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no wasted words. The return snippet and no-op note are directly useful.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the operation, return value, and idempotency. It could be more complete by noting destructiveness/reversibility or path format, but the essentials are present.
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 compensate. It identifies the parameter as a 'document path', which adds some semantic meaning beyond the bare string, but gives no format, examples, or resolution rules. Partial compensation.
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 (all chunks and embeddings for a given document path). The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from sibling document tools like load_document/query_document, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate against them, so it stops short of a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, no prerequisites. The only conditional is a no-op edge case, which is behavioral rather than usage guidance. An agent is left to infer that this is the cleanup/removal tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed