RetailHardHat

Delete Project Note

delete_project_note

Destructive

delete an existing project note's title/content. The original author and project cannot be changed. MCP approval requirements are configurable by the organization administrator; business workflow approvals always apply.

Tool call template

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "noteId": "<noteId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_project_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`noteId`	Yes
`projectId`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 27, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the operation as destructive and non-idempotent, so the description does not need to restate those basics. It adds useful approval-policy context, but it does not clarify the exact deletion consequence or confirm irreversibility, and the immutability line about the original author/project is confusing for a delete operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loads the delete action, but the middle sentence about the original author and project not being changeable does not earn its place for a deletion tool and may mislead. The approval sentence is relevant but sits after the ambiguous content.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists and annotations already flag the operation as destructive, reducing the burden on the description. However, for a destructive delete tool with two undocumented required parameters, the description still needs to clarify exactly what is deleted and what the approval requirement means in practice.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning or requirements of noteId or projectId. It references a project only in an unrelated immutability sentence, so it does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description uses the verb "delete" with "project note's title/content," but the scope is ambiguous: it could mean deleting the note itself or only its title/content fields. It also fails to distinguish the tool from update_project_note, and the statement about the original author and project not being changeable reads like update semantics rather than delete semantics.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this deletion tool versus update_project_note or any other related sibling. The approval sentence describes a policy but does not tell the agent when to choose this tool or what prerequisites must be met before calling it.

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

All RetailHardHat tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?