delete_entitiesRemove multiple entities and their linked relations from a persistent knowledge graph to keep stored user information accurate and up to date.
Delete multiple entities and their associated relations from the knowledge graph
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entityNames | Yes | An array of entity names to delete |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | ||
| success | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "success",
+ "message"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the non-obvious destruction scope — that associated relations are removed too — which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey. It still omits permission requirements and behavior for non-existent entity names.
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 sentence with zero filler, and the resource plus cascade behavior are front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably truncated given the destructive bulk nature of the operation.
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?
The output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the cascade is disclosed. Missing are the failure semantics an agent needs for a destructive bulk delete — what happens when some entity names don't exist, and whether the operation is irreversible/requires confirmation.
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?
One parameter at 100% schema description coverage ('An array of entity names to delete'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no batching limits, name-matching semantics, or partial-failure behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (delete) and resource (entities) plus a scope qualifier (multiple) and the cascade ('their associated relations'). It implicitly separates it from delete_relations and delete_observations, but never names those siblings, so the distinction requires inference.
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 when-not-to-use, no mention of alternatives such as delete_relations for removing only the relationships. The agent must infer selection from the sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.