Slipbox MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

slipbox_delete_note

Permanently delete a note and remove all its links. If uncertain, update the note type to 'fleeting' instead to avoid data loss.

Instructions

Delete a note permanently.

Warning: This also removes all links to and from this note. Consider updating note_type to "fleeting" instead if uncertain.

Args: note_id: The ID of the note to delete

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.4Sep 22, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "result": {
+      "title": "Result",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "result"
+  ],
+  "title": "slipbox_delete_noteOutput",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It warns that the deletion is permanent and that 'This also removes all links to and from this note', which are the critical side effects an agent must know before invoking the tool.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose and the destructive warning appear immediately, and the Args section is minimal without unnecessary padding. Every sentence serves a purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

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, the description covers the essential facts: irreversible deletion, link side effects, and a safer alternative. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter. However, it only restates 'The ID of the note to delete', which adds little beyond the parameter name 'note_id'. It omits any guidance on the ID format, where to obtain it, or whether any validation constraints apply.

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 'Delete a note permanently' – a specific verb, resource, and degree of effect. It distinguishes this from slipbox_delete_link and slipbox_update_note, and the context makes the destructive scope unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly advises 'Consider updating note_type to "fleeting" instead if uncertain', naming a concrete alternative for the uncertain case. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, with no ambiguity.

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