Memos MCP Server

delete_attachment

Remove an attachment from a Memos instance by specifying its name. Clean up files and keep your notes organized.

Instructions

Delete an attachment.

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": {
      "instance": "<instance>",
      "attachmentName": "<attachmentName>"
    },
    "name": "delete_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`instance`	Yes	Instance name
`attachmentName`	Yes	Attachment name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

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 only states the delete action and does not indicate whether deletion is permanent, whether it requires an active connection, what happens to related data, or any error/idempotency behavior. 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short and free of wasted words, which favors conciseness. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise, since it omits meaningful operational details and does not add value beyond the tool name.

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?

The tool is simple with only two well-documented parameters, but the description lacks essential behavioral context for a delete operation, such as irreversibility, prerequisites, and consequences. The absence of annotations and output schema further increases the gap, making the description incomplete.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters ('Instance name' and 'Attachment name') with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further semantic detail about how the parameters relate or are used.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Delete an attachment.' is a direct restatement of the tool name delete_attachment, providing no additional meaning. It identifies the verb and resource, but because the name already conveys this, it is essentially tautological.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as upload_attachment or list_attachments, nor does it mention any prerequisites like having an instance connected. The tool is only identifiable by its name, not by any contextual direction.

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

Deploy Server