delete_observationsRemove specific observations from knowledge graph entities to correct outdated details or prune shared agent memory.
Delete specific observations from entities in the knowledge graph
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deletions | Yes |
| 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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond restating the operation: it does not say the deletion is permanent, whether missing observations are silently skipped, or what happens on partial failure across multiple entities.
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 or repetition. It is efficiently sized for the operation, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.
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?
The tool is low-complexity (one parameter) and has an output schema plus destructive/idempotent annotations, so the missing return-value and safety detail is largely covered elsewhere. The remaining real gap is routing guidance among the many sibling mutation tools, which the description leaves 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% at the parameter level, and the description does not compensate by explaining the 'deletions' array shape, batching semantics, or match requirements. Only the nested entityName/observations fields carry schema descriptions, so the description contributes almost no additional parameter meaning.
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?
States a specific verb (delete) and resource (observations belonging to entities), which distinguishes it from delete_entities and delete_relations by the level of granularity. However it does not explicitly name those siblings or contrast scope, so an agent must infer the distinction from the resource noun alone.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools (add_observations to reverse, delete_entities for whole entities). The agent is left to infer timing entirely from the verb and resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.