pow-mcp-rag-new

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

remove_file_from_index

Remove a file's indexed chunks from a project's RAG index. Use to delete outdated or large files without clearing the entire project.

Instructions

Remove all indexed chunks for a specific file from a project's index. Useful for removing large log files or outdated files without clearing the entire project.

Args: file_path: Relative file path within the project (e.g., "device-26-04-28.log") project: Project name (e.g., "my_device_logs")

Returns: Confirmation with number of chunks removed.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>",
      "project": "<project>"
    },
    "name": "remove_file_from_index"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project`	Yes
`file_path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.9Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the destructive scope (all indexed chunks for a specific file) and discloses the return value (confirmation with number of chunks removed). It lacks cautionary notes about irreversibility, but the scope is unambiguous.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, front-loaded with purpose, and uses a clean Args/Returns structure. Every sentence contributes value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, both parameters, and the return value. It is fully adequate for this complexity level.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description provides an Args section that explains file_path and project with concrete examples, adding meaning far beyond the bare schema titles.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and object: 'Remove all indexed chunks for a specific file from a project's index.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like clear_project_index (removes entire index) and remove_project (removes whole project).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states the intended use case: 'Useful for removing large log files or outdated files without clearing the entire project.' This implies the alternative of clearing the entire index, though it doesn't name the tool directly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.