google-keep-mcp

delete_note

Delete a Google Keep note by providing its ID. Removes the note from your account.

Instructions

Delete a note (mark for deletion).

Args:
    note_id (str): The ID of the note to delete
    
Returns:
    str: Success message
    
Raises:
    ValueError: If the note doesn't exist 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_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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Mark for deletion' hints at soft delete but is vague. Does not disclose permanence, auth requirements, or side effects. Raises ValueError for nonexistent or non-modifiable notes, but behavioral context is minimal.

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?

Extremely concise: three lines of description plus structured Args/Returns/Raises. Front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence serves a clear function with no waste.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite having an output schema (context signal true) and 16 sibling tools, the description fails to clarify how 'delete_note' differs from 'delete_archived_note' or what 'mark for deletion' entails. Lacks contextual details about soft delete or recoverability.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, and description only repeats 'note_id (str): The ID of the note to delete' which adds no semantic value beyond the schema's 'Note Id' property. Required parameter is trivial.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'a note', with parenthetical 'mark for deletion' distinguishing it from archiving. Differentiates from siblings like 'archive_note' and 'delete_archived_note'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_archived_note' or 'archive_note'. Implies it deletes active notes, but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server