Skip to main content
Glama
dweigend

Joplin MCP Server

by dweigend

delete_note

Remove a note from Joplin by specifying its ID, with an option to delete permanently or send to trash.

Instructions

Delete a note from Joplin.

Args:
    note_id: ID of note to delete
    permanent: If True, permanently delete the note

Returns:
    Dictionary containing the operation status

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
note_idYes
permanentNo

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler for delete_note: calls JoplinAPI.delete_note and returns success/error response.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def delete_note(note_id: str, permanent: bool = False) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """Delete a note from Joplin.
        
        Args:
            note_id: ID of note to delete
            permanent: If True, permanently delete the note
        
        Returns:
            Dictionary containing the operation status
        """
        if not api:
            return {"error": "Joplin API client not initialized"}
        
        try:
            api.delete_note(note_id, permanent=permanent)
            return {
                "status": "success",
                "message": f"Note {note_id} {'permanently ' if permanent else ''}deleted"
            }
        except Exception as e:
            logger.error(f"Error deleting note: {e}")
            return {"error": str(e)}
  • JoplinAPI helper method that sends DELETE request to Joplin server endpoint for the note.
    def delete_note(self, note_id: str, permanent: bool = False) -> None:
        """Delete a note.
    
        Args:
            note_id: ID of note to delete
            permanent: If True, permanently delete the note
        """
        endpoint = f"notes/{note_id}"
        if permanent:
            endpoint += "?permanent=1"
        self._make_request("DELETE", endpoint)
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 'permanent' parameter hinting at deletion behavior, but doesn't clarify critical aspects like whether deletion is reversible by default, what permissions are required, or what the 'operation status' dictionary contains. This is insufficient for a destructive operation.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return sections. Every sentence adds value, though the return statement could be slightly more informative. It's appropriately sized without unnecessary elaboration.

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 this is a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more complete context. While it covers parameters adequately, it lacks details on behavioral implications, error conditions, and the structure of the return value. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's full impact.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for both parameters beyond the schema's 0% coverage. It explains that 'note_id' identifies which note to delete and that 'permanent' controls whether deletion is permanent. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it could elaborate on format expectations for 'note_id'.

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 states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a note from Joplin'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_note' or 'create_note' beyond the obvious action difference, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention if this should be used instead of 'update_note' for removal scenarios or if there are prerequisites like confirming note existence first. This leaves the agent without contextual usage direction.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dweigend/joplin-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server