Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Recruit CRM MCP

Recruit CRM MCP

by ebragas
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

delete_note

Delete a note from Recruit CRM by providing the note's unique ID.

Instructions

Delete a note via DELETE /v1/notes/{id}.

Returns a WriteResult with the deleted id for trace.

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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
note_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYes
idYes
titleNo
urlNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.19.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the operation is a deletion (destructive) and that it returns a WriteResult with the deleted ID, which is adequate for a simple tool. However, it does not disclose error handling or permissions.

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?

The description is extremely concise with two short sentences. Every word adds value: it specifies the action, the HTTP method, the endpoint, and the return type. No redundant information.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema likely documenting WriteResult), the description covers the essential purpose and return value. It does not mention error cases or prerequisites, but for a delete operation this is adequate.

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 input schema has one parameter note_id with no description (0% coverage), but the parameter name and the tool description (mentioning the endpoint with {id}) make the meaning clear. It is self-explanatory, but could be more explicit.

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 ('Delete') and the resource ('a note'), and specifies the HTTP method and endpoint. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_note and get_note by the verb and resource.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The usage is implied by the tool name and siblings, but no scenarios or exclusions are given.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools