@applyra/mcp-server

Delete a note

delete_note

DestructiveIdempotent

Removes a note from an app's charts using its note ID from list_notes, then renumbers later notes and confirms deletion.

Instructions

Delete a note from an application's charts. Pass the note id from list_notes. The notes after it are renumbered. Returns { id, deleted: true }.

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": {
      "note_id": "<note_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note_id`	Yes	The note ID (numeric, from list_notes results)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.7.0Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare destructive/idempotent/not-read-only; the description goes further by disclosing a non-obvious side effect (subsequent notes are renumbered) and the exact return payload { id, deleted: true }, which matters because no output schema exists.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the input source, then the side effect and return value. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter delete with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return shape and the cascade side effect, so an agent can call it and interpret the result correctly with nothing material left out.

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% and the single parameter's description already says it is the numeric note ID from list_notes, so the description's ID guidance is largely redundant. Baseline 3 for a fully documented single-parameter schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a note') plus the scope ('from an application's charts'), which cleanly separates it from add_note, update_note and list_notes without opening any schema.

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 the prerequisite workflow step ('Pass the note id from list_notes'), which tells the agent where the required identifier comes from. It does not name exclusions or alternatives (e.g. when to update rather than delete), so it stops short of a 5.

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