Skip to main content
Glama
yodakeisuke

Knowledge Graph Memory Server

by yodakeisuke

delete_entities

Remove entities and their relationships from a knowledge graph to maintain accurate data by specifying which entries to delete.

Instructions

Delete multiple entities and their associated relations from the knowledge graph

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entityNamesYesAn array of entity names to delete

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function deleteEntities in KnowledgeGraphManager class that loads the graph, filters out the specified entities and all relations connected to them, and saves the updated graph.
    async deleteEntities(entityNames: string[]): Promise<void> {
      const graph = await this.loadGraph();
      graph.entities = graph.entities.filter(e => !entityNames.includes(e.name));
      graph.relations = graph.relations.filter(r => !entityNames.includes(r.from) && !entityNames.includes(r.to));
      await this.saveGraph(graph);
    }
  • Input schema definition for the delete_entities tool, specifying an object with required 'entityNames' property as an array of strings.
    inputSchema: {
      type: "object",
      properties: {
        entityNames: { 
          type: "array", 
          items: { type: "string" },
          description: "An array of entity names to delete" 
        },
      },
      required: ["entityNames"],
    },
  • index.ts:437-451 (registration)
    Tool registration in the listTools response, defining name, description, and input schema for delete_entities.
    {
      name: "delete_entities",
      description: "Delete multiple entities and their associated relations from the knowledge graph",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          entityNames: { 
            type: "array", 
            items: { type: "string" },
            description: "An array of entity names to delete" 
          },
        },
        required: ["entityNames"],
      },
    },
  • Dispatcher in the CallToolRequestHandler switch statement that calls the deleteEntities handler with arguments and returns a success response.
    case "delete_entities":
      await knowledgeGraphManager.deleteEntities(args.entityNames as string[]);
      return createResponse("Entities deleted successfully");
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that associated relations are also deleted, which adds some context beyond the basic 'delete' action. However, it doesn't address critical aspects like whether the deletion is permanent/irreversible, permission requirements, error handling, or what happens if entities don't exist.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter and no annotations, with every word earning its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'associated relations' means in practice, what confirmation or feedback the tool provides, or the implications of bulk deletion. Given the complexity and risk of a delete operation, more behavioral context is needed.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'entityNames' clearly documented as 'An array of entity names to delete'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target resources ('multiple entities and their associated relations from the knowledge graph'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like delete_observations or delete_relations, which handle different resource types.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_observations or delete_relations, nor does it mention prerequisites, dependencies, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/yodakeisuke/mcp-memory-domain-knowledge'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server