Dexi Notes

Delete note

delete_note

Destructive

Permanently delete a note. This cannot be undone, and it also removes the attached bookmark, saved email, or feed-article record if the note came from one. Confirm with the user before deleting anything they did not explicitly ask to remove.

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": {
      "note_id": "<note_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`intent`	No	One short sentence on what you're trying to accomplish for the user — helps improve these tools; optional, keep personal details out
`note_id`	Yes	Note UUID to delete

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

A4.1/5.0

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 genuinely new behavioral facts: the deletion is irreversible and it cascades to an attached bookmark, saved email, or feed-article record. The confirmation requirement is also stated, which is the kind of side-effect and safety context annotations cannot express.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the irreversible action and its cascade effect before the confirm-with-user rule. Every sentence carries distinct information: permanence, scope of removal, and a safety instruction; nothing is redundant.

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 tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential risk profile: irreversibility, cascading deletion, and the confirmation requirement. It leaves minor gaps such as behavior when note_id does not exist or referential side effects on tags and folders, but nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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%, with note_id documented as "Note UUID to delete" and intent explained inline, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description references deleting "a note" but adds no format, validation, or semantics beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Permanently delete a note") and the word "Permanently" immediately separates it from the non-destructive siblings like update_note or get_note. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from the sibling list rather than being told.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description supplies an explicit usage rule: confirm with the user before deleting anything they did not explicitly ask to remove, which functions as a when-not-to-act guardrail. It does not name an alternative path (for example, using update_note to archive or clear content instead of deleting), so tool-selection guidance is incomplete.

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?