better-bear

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

bear_remove_tag

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a tag from a Bear note, including ancestor tags visible in the tag hierarchy. Removing a hierarchical tag also deletes orphaned ancestor tags.

Instructions

Remove a tag from a specific Bear note. Works on any tag visible in 'tags' on the note — including ancestor tags like 'parent' that exist only as hierarchical expansions. Removing a hierarchical leaf like 'parent/child' also drops orphaned ancestors from the tag index.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "tag": "<tag>"
    },
    "name": "bear_remove_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Note ID (uniqueIdentifier)
`tag`	Yes	Tag to remove (without #)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.4.26May 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds context: it works on ancestor tags and removes orphaned ancestors when a leaf like 'parent/child' is removed. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and key details. Every sentence adds value: first defines core function, second explains hierarchical edge case. No wasted words.

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?

Tool has only two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the essential behavior (removal, hierarchy handling). Sufficient for typical use, though no mention of return values or error scenarios.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (id and tag). The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'without #' is already in schema). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action (remove a tag from a specific Bear note) and specifies the scope (any tag visible in 'tags', including ancestor tags). It distinguishes from siblings like bear_rename_tag and bear_delete_tag by detailing hierarchical behavior.

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?

The description implies the tool is for removing tags from notes but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like bear_delete_tag (which deletes the tag entirely). No exclusion criteria or scenario guidance is provided.

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