obsidian-local-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Delete Node

delete_node

Remove a node from the dependency graph. Soft delete hides it from reads but keeps the row; hard delete removes all connected edges irreversibly.

Instructions

Remove a node. Soft delete (default) hides it from reads but keeps the row; hard=True also deletes every edge touching it, irreversibly.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`hard`	No
`vault`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the default is a soft delete that hides the node from reads while retaining the row, and that hard=True cascades to delete every touching edge irreversibly. It doesn't mention permissions/auth, rate limits, or whether downstream references break.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the mode semantics. Every clause adds information; nothing is redundant or pad.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description focuses appropriately on mutation semantics. The main gap is the unexplained 'vault' parameter and lack of guidance relative to sibling tools like archive_note.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the two meaningful parameters: 'hard' is explained via its default-vs-irreversible semantics, and soft-delete behavior is tied to the default. The 'vault' parameter is never addressed, which would matter for multi-vault scoping.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove a node') and immediately distinguishes the two deletion modes. It does not name or contrast a sibling, so it stops short of the 5-level sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied through the soft/default vs hard distinction, giving the agent a sense of when hard deletion is warranted. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over archive_note or clear_graph, nor any prerequisite or caution framing.

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