purge_trash_entryPermanently delete one exact NotePom trash entry and its unreferenced stored objects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trashEntryId | Yes | ||
| idempotencyKey | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| purged | Yes | ||
| trashEntryId | 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 already carry destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is lighter. It adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations by specifying that only unreferenced stored objects are deleted, and it does not contradict the annotation-provided safety profile.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core operation and a key behavioral nuance without wasting words.
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?
The tool is simple and has annotations plus an output schema, so the description only needs to cover selection and invocation essentials. It covers purpose and destruction scope, but it leaves idempotencyKey semantics unexplained and does not explicitly distinguish itself from restore_trash_entry, which are meaningful gaps for an agent choosing and calling 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate for both parameters. It indirectly clarifies trashEntryId as 'one exact trash entry,' but it says nothing about what idempotencyKey means, why it is required, or how it should be generated/used despite the idempotentHint annotation.
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 ('Permanently delete') and a specific resource ('one exact NotePom trash entry'), and adds a distinctive consequence ('and its unreferenced stored objects'). It clearly separates this from sibling operations like restore_trash_entry and trash_file.
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 makes it clear this is the permanent-destruction counterpart to trash/restore operations, giving an agent enough context to distinguish when to call it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'use restore_trash_entry instead when recovery is desired,' so it stops short of a full when/when-not explanation.
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 and action, and lifecycle pairs like publish_note_listing vs publish_media_listing or get_note vs get_collaboration_note are separated by clear wording. A few near-pairs such as move_file vs move_workspace_item and trash_file vs trash_workspace_item could still cause an agent to pick the wrong tool without careful reading.
All 38 tools follow one consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern with no camelCase or mixed conventions. Even less common verbs like upsert, trash, purge, and validate are applied uniformly, making the tool set predictable.
38 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and makes the overall surface feel heavy for tool selection. The number is defensible given the broad workspace, collaboration, and marketplace scope, but as a single MCP server it is not especially well-scoped.
The tool set covers workspace content lifecycle, collaboration, public pages, marketplace listings, Stripe seller flow, and agent registration without major dead ends. Minor gaps exist, such as no permanent delete outside of the trash flow and no direct collaboration-note deletion, but core workflows are supported.