delete_entitiesRemove multiple entities and their linked relations from a knowledge graph by passing an array of entity names in one request.
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.
v1.0.2Does 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 structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: deletion is both batched and cascading, taking associated relations with it. It does not describe partial-failure behavior, which keeps it from a 5.
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 that front-loads the action and packs the two salient facts (batch scope, relation cascade) with no filler. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.
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 annotations carry the destructive/idempotent profile. The cascade is called out, leaving only edge behavior (nonexistent names, partial results) unaddressed.
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?
With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents entityNames. The description only echoes the batch nature ("multiple entities") and adds no format, naming, or matching semantics beyond what the schema states.
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 gives a specific verb (Delete) and resource (entities), plus batch scope ("multiple") and the cascade effect ("their associated relations"), which meaningfully separates it from delete_relations and delete_observations. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling to route against, so it does not reach a 5.
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?
The scope term "multiple" implies this is the bulk deletion path, but the description never states when to prefer it over delete_relations or how to remove individual entities. Usage is inferred rather than instructed, and no prerequisites or warnings are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.