cortexpad

remove_changelog_entry

Permanently remove a single changelog entry (e.g. a test/junk entry added by mistake). Strips the trailing "((n))" marker from content if the removed entry itself carried it, and decrements the lifetime section counter so a removed entry stops inflating it. A marker number is NOT a unique entry id -- appendTo lets many entries share one n as a running thread. If more than one entry shares n, this fails and lists each entry's at timestamp; pass the specific one you mean as at to remove only that entry, not the whole thread. Call get_note first if unsure which entries share a marker.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`n`	Yes	The changelog entry number to remove, e.g. 4 for "((4))"
`at`	No	Optional: the exact `at` ISO timestamp of the specific entry to remove, required when n has more than one entry chained onto it
`id`	Yes	Note ID

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the irreversible destructive nature, the side effect of stripping the '((n))' marker, and the decrementing of the lifetime section counter. It also explains the failure mode when multiple entries share n, which is critical behavior beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and proceeds logically through side effects, caveats, and remediation. Every sentence adds necessary detail for a tool with nuanced behavior, making it appropriately sized and well structured.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description comprehensively covers its behavior: side effects, failure mode, and a suggested pre-step. It fully satisfies the need for contextual completeness.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema already covers all parameters with descriptions, but the description adds essential nuance by explaining that n is not a unique ID and that `at` differentiates entries sharing the same n. This enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema's baseline.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with 'Permanently remove a single changelog entry' which clearly states the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like add_changelog_entry and delete_note by specifying it targets a single entry within a note, not the note itself.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides concrete usage guidance including when to pass `at` for disambiguation and recommends calling `get_note` first if unsure about shared marker numbers. It does not explicitly mention alternatives for other scenarios, but the get_note reference and the handling of ambiguous cases serve as effective direction.

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

All cortexpad tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: note CRUD, checklist operations, label management, changelog entries, settings, and task queries. Descriptions explicitly differentiate between append vs. update, list vs. get, check vs. uncheck, and add vs. remove, so there is no ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., add_label, get_note, check_item, update_note), with consistent verb choices. Even 'get_my_tasks' and 'uncheck_item' fit the pattern, so the naming is predictable and uniform.

Tool Count5/5

14 tools is well-scoped for a notes application with checklist, label, and changelog features. Each tool covers a distinct operation without redundancy or bloat, and the count sits comfortably within the ideal 3-15 range.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers full CRUD for notes, plus checklist management (add, check, uncheck), label management (add/remove), changelog entries, settings retrieval, and task aggregation. Minor gaps like archive/unarchive and a dedicated label list are workable, so the surface is near-complete for the domain.

Resources

Need Help?