delete_notePermanently delete a Zotero note by note key to remove outdated or unwanted notes from a user or group library.
Permanently delete a Zotero note.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note_key | Yes | ||
| library_id | No | ||
| library_type | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Input schema / properties / library_idAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Library Id"
+}Input schema / properties / library_typeAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "enum": [
+ "user",
+ "group"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Library Type"
+}v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the irreversibility nuance via 'permanently', which is real value, but it omits permission requirements, library-scoping behavior, and any recovery caveat.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single clean, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive three-parameter delete tool with 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. Even with an output schema present (relieving the need to explain returns), the total absence of parameter and scoping context leaves the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does not compensate. It never explains note_key, or the meaning/behavior of the optional library_id and library_type scoping parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a Zotero note'), and 'note' distinguishes it from delete_item and delete_annotation, while 'permanently' distinguishes it from trash_item. Clear, though it names no sibling explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. 'Permanently' hints at irreversibility but the description never tells the agent to reach for trash_item for recoverable deletion or explains when this tool is appropriate over other delete tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.