Permanently remove an entire vault, including all notes, lock files, and git history. Irreversible; requires exact vault name confirmation.
Delete a whole vault: removes every note, lock file and the git history. Irreversible with no undo in this server; confirm must exactly equal the vault name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vault | Yes | Vault name | |
| confirm | Yes | Must exactly equal the vault name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description goes further by specifying exactly what is destroyed (notes, lock files, git history) and that the action is irreversible with no in-server undo. That is precisely the extra context annotations cannot carry.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two compact sentences: destruction scope first, then the irreversible warning and the confirm requirement. Zero filler and the riskiest information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, and none is needed for a delete. The description covers destruction scope, reversibility, and the confirmation guard, which is everything an agent needs to invoke this safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both the vault and confirm parameters, including confirm's exact-match rule. The description repeats the confirm constraint without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (delete), a specific resource (a whole vault), and enumerates the blast radius: every note, lock file, and git history. An agent can distinguish this from the sibling delete_note at a glance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Clearly frames this as an irreversible last-resort operation with no undo, and states the exact confirm guard required to proceed. It does not explicitly name delete_note or other safer siblings as alternatives, so the when-not guidance is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.