Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kybase

Kybase

by Kyrzin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

delete_folder

Delete a folder and all its nested subfolders, moving every contained note to the trash for recovery via restore within the retention window.

Instructions

Delete a folder and its full subtree of child folders (cascade). Every note inside — including notes in nested subfolders — is soft-deleted into the trash along with it (see delete_note), recoverable via restore_note within the retention window. To preserve organization instead, move notes/subfolders out first.

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>"
    },
    "name": "delete_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesUUID of the folder to delete along with its subfolders. Notes inside are moved to the trash, not destroyed

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.3.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Added value: +"UUID of the folder to delete along with its subfolders. Notes inside are moved to the trash, not destroyed"
    • removedInput schema / properties / id / pattern
      Removed value: -"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$"
  2. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses cascade deletion, soft-deletion into trash, recoverability via restore_note, and a retention window. It leaves some gaps around exact retention duration, permission requirements, and the response after deletion, but the core destructive semantics are unusually well explained.

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?

The description is two tightly written sentences with the cascade scope front-loaded, followed by the recovery and alternative-action context. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition or filler.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is deleted, the cascade effect, trash semantics, recovery, and a preservation alternative. It could be slightly more complete with retention specifics or post-delete response expectations, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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% for the single id parameter, and the schema itself already explains that the UUID deletes the folder along with subfolders and that notes are moved to trash. The description reinforces the same cascade/soft-delete meaning but does not add syntax, format, or selection guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 states a specific verb (delete) and resource (folder) with important scope: the full subtree of child folders (cascade). It distinguishes the operation from sibling delete_note by explaining that every contained note is also affected, so an agent can tell what this tool does and does not target.

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?

It gives a clear when-to-use context and a concrete alternative path: to preserve organization, move notes/subfolders out first. It also names delete_note and restore_note for related behavior, but it does not explicitly compare itself to every plausible sibling (e.g., update_folder for reorganization), so it stops just short of full 5-level guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools