Skip to main content
Glama

noteking_delete_attachment

Delete and purge an attachment from a note by providing the note ID and attachment ID, removing the file association from that note.

Instructions

Purge and delete an attachment from a note

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": {
      "note_id": "<note_id>",
      "attachment_id": "<attachment_id>"
    },
    "name": "noteking_delete_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
note_idYesUnique identifier of the note
attachment_idYesUnique identifier of the attachment to remove

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden for what is clearly a destructive mutation. 'Purge' hints at permanence, but the description never states whether the removal is irreversible, whether the note itself is affected, or what permissions/auth is required — all questions an agent needs answered before invoking a delete.

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?

A single short phrase with no filler and the destructive action front-loaded, which reads cleanly. It is arguably too terse for a delete operation, but there is no wasted wording to penalize.

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, non-annotated tool with no output schema, the definition should at minimum disclose irreversibility and side effects. Since it omits confirmation behavior, failure modes, and consequences for the parent note, it is under-specified relative to the risk of the operation.

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%, with both note_id and attachment_id documented in the schema with positive-integer constraints, so the description need not restate them. It adds no extra meaning such as whether IDs are global or note-scoped, which keeps this at the baseline.

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 names a specific verb ('delete'/'purge') and resource ('attachment from a note'), so an agent knows exactly what object is acted on. It does not distinguish this from the adjacent noteking_upload_attachment or noteking_delete_note operations, leaving sibling differentiation to the tool names alone.

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 on when to use this versus related tools, nor any stated preconditions such as whether the note must exist or whether the attachment must first be listed via noteking_list_attachments. The agent must infer all usage context from the name and schema.

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