Dexi Notes

Delete base

delete_base

Destructive

Delete a saved base. Only the definition goes — the notes it showed are untouched. Confirm with the user first unless they asked for it explicitly.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "delete_base"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Base name (case-insensitive)
`intent`	No	One short sentence on what you're trying to accomplish for the user — helps improve these tools; optional, keep personal details out

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedNov 5, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / intent / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "maxLength": 300,
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- removedInput schema / properties / intent / default
```
Removed value: -null
```
- addedInput schema / properties / intent / maxLength
```
Added value: +300
```
- addedInput schema / properties / intent / type
```
Added value: +"string"
```
First observedOct 27, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's added value is in clarifying exactly what is destroyed: the base definition only, leaving the notes intact. It also adds a consent requirement that annotations cannot express. It stops short of noting irreversibility or behavior when the named base does not exist.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the scope limit, then the consent rule. No filler and nothing an agent must read past to find the core instruction.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a destructive two-parameter tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers the two things an agent must know: what is removed and whether to confirm first. Only irreversibility and not-found behavior remain unstated.

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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (name with case-insensitivity, and the optional intent) are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about how `name` is matched or what happens on a near-miss match.

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?

"Delete a saved base" gives a specific verb and resource, and the follow-up clause "Only the definition goes — the notes it showed are untouched" resolves the one ambiguity an agent would have among siblings (delete_base vs delete_note). The scope of the deletion is unambiguous before opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It supplies a real usage rule — confirm with the user unless they asked for deletion explicitly — which is meaningful guidance for an irreversible action. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings such as update_base, or on the precondition that the base must exist (e.g., listing via list_bases first).

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

All Dexi Notes 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?