nblm-mcp

delete_source

Remove a source from a notebook by notebook_id and source_id; confirm must be true, because citations pointing to that source are also dropped.

Instructions

Remove a source from a notebook.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`confirm`	No	Must be true. Removing a source also drops the citations that point at it, so ask the user first.
`source_id`	Yes	The source to remove, from list_sources.
`notebook_id`	Yes	The notebook holding the source.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Remove' but omits that citations pointing at the source are dropped and that confirmation is required; those details live only in the schema's confirm parameter.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though for a destructive action it is perhaps under-specified.

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 the input schema covers the required confirm flag and its consequences, so an agent has key operational details. However, the description itself adds almost no usage or behavioral context for a destructive removal 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 description coverage is 100%, and the parameters are richly documented (including the confirm requirement and citation consequence), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with its scope: removing a source from a notebook. This distinguishes it from the sibling add_source, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

The description offers no when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The schema's confirm parameter says to ask the user first, but the description itself gives none of that routing context.

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

Deploy Server