Delete a sticky_note you own.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "sticky_note_delete"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The sticky_note id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the core safety profile is covered. The description adds the ownership constraint, but it does not mention permanence, error behavior for missing notes, or what the deletion affects beyond the owned note.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. For a simple one-parameter delete tool, that structure is appropriately sized.
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 the simple schema, existing annotations, and lack of an output schema, the description is nearly complete enough to support correct invocation. A little more detail on permanence or failure behavior would make it fully self-contained.
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 single id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what is already in the structured definition, which is appropriate for a one-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage.
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 states a specific verb and resource — deleting a sticky_note — and adds an ownership scope. It is clear enough to distinguish this from update/list/create siblings, but it does not explicitly contrast with a nearby alternative such as sticky_note_dismiss.
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 phrase "you own" implies an authorization context, but the description does not say when to use this versus sticky_note_dismiss, sticky_note_update, or other note lifecycle tools. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.
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.