Skip to main content
Glama

Sweeppea MCP

by com.sweeppea.mcp

delete_note

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently delete a note. Use fetch_notes first to get the note_token. WARNING: This action cannot be undone.

delete_note

When to use

Permanently delete a note. Use fetch_notes first to get the note_token. WARNING: This action cannot be undone.

Parameters to validate before calling

  • note_token (string, required) — The note token to delete (UUID format)

Notes

  • DESTRUCTIVE — IRREVERSIBLE. Always confirm with the user before calling. Explain what will be lost.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
note_tokenYesThe note token to delete (UUID format)

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds critical warnings: 'cannot be undone', 'DESTRUCTIVE — IRREVERSIBLE', and instructs to explain what will be lost. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent actionable behavior for a destructive 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 structured and front-loaded, but it has redundancy: the main description repeats in the 'When to use' section, and the parameter info duplicates the schema. The warning appears multiple times. While not excessively long, the repetition detracts from conciseness.

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?

For a simple destructive tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, parameter validation, and safety warnings. It is complete and leaves no critical gaps for an agent to misuse the tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for note_token ('The note token to delete (UUID format)'). The description repeats this information in a 'Parameters to validate before calling' section but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 clearly states 'Permanently delete a note' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_todo or delete_calendar_event by naming 'note' explicitly. The prerequisite 'Use fetch_notes first to get the note_token' adds clarity.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly instructs to call fetch_notes first to obtain the note_token, and warns to always confirm with the user before calling due to destructive nature. This provides clear workflow context and safety guidance, going beyond what the schema or annotations alone offer.

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

All Sweeppea MCP toolsInspect
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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern (fetch_* for lists, get_* for single items, create/update/delete for writes), making them distinguishable. A few near-overlaps exist (fetch_billing_transactions vs fetch_wallet_transactions, draw_winners vs schedule_drawing) but the descriptions clarify the boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case verb_noun, with fetch_ for list operations and get_ for single-item retrieval. Some verb variation (add_participant, count_participants, draw_winners, schedule_drawing) deviates from the dominant create/fetch/update/delete pattern but remains predictable and readable.

Tool Count1/5

With 83 tools, this is far beyond a well-scoped server (typically 3-15, with 25+ considered too many). Even though the platform has broad functionality, the sheer number of tools creates significant agent confusion and selection overhead.

Completeness4/5

The sweepstakes domain is thoroughly covered: lifecycle management, participants, groups, rules, drawings, winners, calendar, notes, todos, tickets, surveys, invoices, billing, files, and entry settings. A few minor gaps exist (e.g., no general participant field update, no archive action) but the surface is remarkably complete for its scope.

Resources