jobs-tools-knowledgebase

Jobs-tools-knowledgeBase-deleteUserContextItem

Soft delete a user context item by ID, marking it as deleted while preserving content for restoration and updating access tracking.

Instructions

Soft delete specific user context item by ID in Zettelkasten lifecycle. Marks note as 'deleted' status while preserving content for potential restoration. Updates Zettelkasten note status and access tracking.

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": {
      "itemId": "<itemId>"
    },
    "name": "Jobs-tools-knowledgeBase-deleteUserContextItem"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`itemId`	Yes	Guide Note ID or item ID to soft delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.14Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a soft delete, preserves content, and updates Zettelkasten note status and access tracking, adding behavioral detail beyond the tool name. It could mention permissions or idempotency but is reasonably transparent.

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?

Three concise sentences with front-loaded main action followed by behavioral details. No redundant or unnecessary content.

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?

For a single-parameter soft-delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, behavior, and lifecycle context. It lacks explicit differentiation from sibling delete tools but is otherwise complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, with itemId described as 'Guide Note ID or item ID to soft delete'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond referencing 'by ID', so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the action (soft delete), the specific resource (user context item by ID), and the lifecycle context (Zettelkasten). It distinguishes from siblings like deleteUserContext by emphasizing 'specific item' and 'soft delete', and from undeleteUserContextItem by its deletion nature.

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 for removing a single user context item while preserving restorability, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like deleteUserContext or deleteGuideNote. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.

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

Deploy Server