google-keep-mcp

delete_archived_note

Permanently delete an archived note by moving it to trash. Requires the note ID and an archived state.

Instructions

Permanently delete an archived note (moves to trash).

Args:
    note_id (str): The ID of the archived note to delete
    
Returns:
    str: Success message
    
Raises:
    ValueError: If the note doesn't exist, is not archived, or cannot be modified

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_archived_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations present, so the description bears full burden. It states the operation is 'permanently delete' yet also 'moves to trash', which is inconsistent. It mentions error conditions but does not clarify reversibility, authorization, or side effects like potential recovery from trash.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief and includes a structured docstring (Args/Returns/Raises), making it easy to parse. However, the contradictory wording wastes some space, preventing a top score.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (1 param, no nested objects, output schema), the description covers the basic purpose, arguments, return value, and error cases. However, it lacks context about the trash lifecycle and how this tool relates to siblings, leaving some gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds value by explaining the one parameter (note_id) as 'the ID of the archived note to delete'. This provides clear semantic context beyond the schema's type-only definition.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the action (delete) and resource (archived note), distinguishing it from siblings like archive_note and restore_note. However, the phrase 'permanently delete (moves to trash)' is contradictory, slightly reducing clarity.

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 usage when deleting an archived note, and the error condition (ValueError if not archived) provides indirect guidance. But it lacks explicit when-to-use or alternative tool recommendations, so only implied usage.

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

Deploy Server