Delete documents from the index by source name, folder, or glob pattern, leaving your original files untouched.
Remove documents from the index by source name, folder, or glob pattern.
Source files are never deleted. A folder name removes every document indexed
beneath it; a glob (*/?/[]) removes every matching source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| names | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Input schema / properties / delete_filesRemoved value: -{
- "type": "boolean"
-}v1.0.2Input schema / properties / delete_files / defaultRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / delete_files / titleRemoved value: -"Delete Files"Input schema / properties / names / titleRemoved value: -"Names"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"removeArguments"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that source files are never deleted and explains matching behavior for folders and globs. This covers key behavioral traits, though rate limits or reversibility are not addressed.
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?
The description is two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence clearly states purpose, and the second adds critical behavioral context. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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?
Given one parameter and the existence of an output schema, the description covers input semantics and key behavioral notes. It lacks any mention of return values, but the output schema likely provides that. Minor gap.
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 0% for the 'names' parameter, but the description thoroughly explains that names can be source names, folder names, or glob patterns, with specific semantics for each. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.
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 verb 'Remove' and resource 'documents from the index' are clear. It specifies the input types (source name, folder, glob pattern) and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add' and 'sync'.
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 description implies when to use this tool (to remove indexed documents) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. No clear guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.