Delete a documentation source and all its stored nodes by providing the source ID, freeing up space and removing associated content from the navigation system.
Remove a documentation source and all of its stored nodes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source_id | Yes | Canonical documentation source ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical side effect: removing a source cascades to all stored nodes. It does not mention permanence, permissions, or downstream effects, but the most important destructive behavior is explicitly stated.
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 no filler. The action and consequence are immediately clear, and every word contributes to the meaning.
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 destructive tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the target, specifies the cascade effect, and the schema handles the ID format. A note about irreversibility or a pointer to list_sources would be a minor improvement.
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 only parameter is already described as 'Canonical documentation source ID' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about source_id, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 action (remove) on a specific resource (documentation source) and clarifies that it also removes all stored nodes. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling remove_nodes, which targets individual nodes rather than the entire source.
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 is given about when to choose this tool over remove_nodes or how it relates to create_source/list_sources. The destructive scope is implied, but there is no explicit when-to-use or exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.