Memos MCP Server

delete_memo

Delete a specific memo from a Memos instance. Supply the instance name and the memo path (e.g., memos/123) to permanently remove it.

Instructions

Delete a memo.

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>",
      "memoName": "<memoName>"
    },
    "name": "delete_memo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`instance`	Yes	Instance name
`memoName`	Yes	Memo name (e.g., "memos/123")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a memo' only names the destructive action and does not mention permanence, cascading effects, required permissions, or error behavior. It gives minimal signal but stops far short of transparently describing consequences.

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 a single short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is so brief that it leaves important behavioral context for other dimensions to cover.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is under-specified. It omits whether deletion is permanent, whether associated data is removed, and what happens on invalid or missing memos. The schema documents parameter names but not operational context.

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%, so both instance and memoName are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable under the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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 action (delete) and the resource (memo), which is enough to distinguish it from memo-related siblings like get_memo, create_memo, and update_memo. However, it is minimal and does not add any distinguishing context beyond the obvious resource.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or conditions. The agent can only infer that it should be used when the goal is to delete a memo, but no exclusions or alternative routing 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