lore-mcp

journal_delete

Permanently delete a journal entry by providing its entry ID. Requires explicit confirmation to prevent accidental deletion.

Instructions

Hard-delete a journal entry by entry_id (Issue #21). Requires confirm=True; in LORE_ENV=production also requires confirm_production=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": {
      "entry_id": "<entry_id>"
    },
    "name": "journal_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`entry_id`	Yes
`confirm`	No
`confirm_production`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.8.6May 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states 'hard-delete' implying permanent removal and mentions confirmation requirements. But it does not describe potential side effects or data loss implications.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action. Every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Covers main action and critical conditions. Output schema exists, so return values are covered. Lacks mention of error handling or what happens if entry_id doesn't exist.

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?

Schema has 0% description coverage. Description adds meaning by stating entry_id is the identifier and specifying confirmation requirements with conditions. Could be improved by describing entry_id format.

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?

Clearly states 'Hard-delete a journal entry by entry_id', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like journal_append, journal_get, journal_list, journal_search.

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?

Explicitly requires confirm=True and confirm_production=True in production. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., if a soft delete exists).

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