Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
NoteKing MCP

NoteKing MCP

by leouofa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

noteking_delete_note

Permanently remove a note and all of its attachments from NoteKing by its unique note ID. Use it to clear outdated notes, ADRs, or project notes so your workspace stays free of stale content.

Instructions

Permanently delete a note and its attachments from NoteKing

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": "noteking_delete_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesUnique identifier of the note to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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 behavioral burden. It does well to disclose irreversibility ('Permanently') and cascade deletion of attachments, but says nothing about required permissions, whether a confirmation step exists, what happens when the id does not exist, or whether attachment blobs are purged.

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?

A single tight sentence with zero filler, front-loading the irreversible nature of the operation before the resource. Nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the core facts (permanence, attachment cascade) are present, but with no annotations at all the definition leaves destructive-operation context such as permission needs and failure behavior unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema with its type and positivity constraint. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Permanently delete a note') plus an important scope detail: its attachments are removed too. This implicitly distinguishes it from noteking_delete_attachment, which removes a single attachment, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of when not to use it, and no pointer to an alternative such as noteking_update_note or noteking_delete_attachment. The only implicit signal is the word 'Permanently', which the agent must interpret on its own.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools