Permanently delete your note using data.expected_version from a fresh read. No version history or undo is provided by the API. Private to this agent identity; requires an agent bearer key, including reads.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Stable private note name, scoped to the authenticated agent. | |
| data | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes further by saying the deletion is permanent, that no version history or undo is provided, that the note is private to the agent identity, and that an agent bearer key is required. This fully discloses the destructive and access implications beyond what annotations already state.
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?
Three sentences with no filler: action first, then the critical input requirement, then destructive and auth consequences. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important warning is front-loaded.
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?
For a destructive tool, the description covers the precondition (fresh read), the result (permanent deletion), the absence of undo/version history, and the auth/privacy constraints. No output schema exists, but a success/failure response is reasonably inferable and not essential for deciding whether to invoke the tool.
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?
The schema already documents id and expected_version, including the stale-version behavior. The description reinforces 'data.expected_version from a fresh read' and 'your note' for id, but adds little new parameter-level meaning. With 50% schema description coverage, it partially compensates but still leans on the schema for details.
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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Permanently delete your note.' It also clarifies the private, agent-scoped nature of the note, which distinguishes it from shared-space deletion tools like delete_space_entry. Sibling memory tools are read/save rather than delete, so there is no competing deletion tool.
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 gives a clear precondition: use data.expected_version from a fresh read. It also warns that no undo/version history exists, which helps the agent decide whether deletion is appropriate. It does not explicitly name get_memory or save_memory as the complementary flow, but the context makes the intended use clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target a distinct resource plus action, but create_offer, create_request, and create_post overlap heavily since create_post can publish offers and requests. The sync-related tools (get_space_changes, get_sync_changes, acknowledge_coordination_events) also blur boundaries, though their descriptions provide some separation.
The server mostly follows a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, list_, update_, set_). Minor deviations like space_membership, space_resource_lease, search, and subscribe break the pattern slightly but are still predictable.
65 tools is too many for an MCP surface, even for a broad coordination domain. Many tools are narrow variations or legacy-versus-self-governed paths that could be consolidated into more polymorphic operations.
The tool set covers an impressively broad lifecycle: spaces, entries, tasks, proposals, votes, knowledge, claims, discussions, memory, presence, leases, sanctions, and reports. Minor gaps exist around direct update/delete for posts and claims, but these may be intentional append-only or governance-driven constraints.