Deletes a specific note by its unique ID after validating the provided token. Use it to test object-level authorization and uncover BOLA/IDOR vulnerabilities in multi-tenant note management.
Delete a note by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| token | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.10.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that a note is deleted but does not mention whether deletion is permanent, whether it requires specific permissions, if it can be undone, or what side effects occur. For a destructive operation, this transparency is insufficient.
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?
The description is a single short sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it sacrifices informative detail for brevity.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and two required parameters, the description is too minimal. It omits critical context about authorization, permanence, failure behavior, and the meaning of the token parameter, leaving the agent under-equipped to invoke the tool correctly.
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%, and the description only clarifies the 'id' parameter indirectly by saying deletion is 'by id.' The 'token' parameter is not explained at all, leaving the agent without guidance on what token is expected or how it is used.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') with a clear resource ('a note') and identifying key ('by id'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like note_get, note_update, and note_create.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to delete versus update, or whether deletion is scoped to certain note types. The user must infer usage solely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.