delete_relationsRemove multiple relations from a knowledge graph by specifying each connection's source, target, and relation type to keep stored memory accurate.
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.
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 useful fact that this operates in batch ('multiple') and targets the knowledge graph, but says nothing about irreversibility consequences, permission requirements, or whether missing relations cause errors. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but thin.
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 efficient sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, though it is so terse that it verges on under-specification rather than optimized conciseness.
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 explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a destructive, non-readonly mutation, the description omits any caveat about unrecoverable deletion or partial-failure behavior across a batch, leaving a real gap for an agent deciding whether to call it.
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 100% and the single nested parameter's fields (from, to, relationType) are all documented in the schema. The description only echoes the batch nature of the array and adds no format or matching semantics, so baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description states a specific verb (delete) plus resource (relations) and notes batch semantics ('multiple'), which distinguishes it from siblings like delete_entities and delete_observations. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the resource noun is unambiguous enough for an agent to route correctly.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of delete_entities/delete_observations, no mention of prerequisites, and no note about what happens when a specified relation does not exist. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.