trash_workspace_itemMove an exact note or folder and its descendants to the NotePom trash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entityId | Yes | ||
| entityType | Yes | ||
| idempotencyKey | Yes | ||
| expectedUpdatedAt | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| trashed | 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 convey read-only=false, destructive=true, and idempotent=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that descendants are included and that the destination is the NotePom trash, which clarifies the destructive scope.
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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation, scope, and destination, making it appropriately concise.
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 with four parameters and no schema descriptions, the description is too thin. It omits the meaning of required idempotencyKey and optional expectedUpdatedAt, and it does not guide an agent on when to choose this over closely related sibling tools. Output schema and annotations help, but they do not fill these semantic gaps.
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 has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It loosely maps 'note or folder' to entityType and 'exact' to entityId, but it does not explain idempotencyKey or expectedUpdatedAt, both of which are semantically important for correct invocation.
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 clearly identifies the operation as moving a note or folder, including its descendants, to the NotePom trash. It is specific enough to distinguish this from most siblings like move_workspace_item and trash_file, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as trash_file, move_workspace_item, purge_trash_entry, or restore_trash_entry. The description implies use when an exact note or folder should be trashed, but it provides no explicit selection criteria or exclusions.
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.