delete_relationsRemove multiple relations from the knowledge graph by specifying each relation's start entity, end entity, and relation type. Use it to clean up outdated or incorrect memory connections.
Delete multiple relations from the knowledge graph
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| relations | Yes | An array of relations to delete |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | ||
| success | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"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 nothing beyond that: no note on partial failure behavior, whether missing relations are silently ignored, or any auth requirement.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource lead. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true economy.
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 no explanation, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. However, for a destructive batch operation the description leaves behavioral and routing questions entirely to annotations.
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 100% and the nested relation object's from/to/relationType fields are each documented in the schema, so the description need not compensate. It adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.
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?
Names a specific verb (Delete), resource (relations), batch scope (multiple), and domain (knowledge graph). This distinguishes it from delete_entities and delete_observations, though the description never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.
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?
Provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as delete_entities or delete_observations for removing other graph elements. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.