delete_noteDelete a saved note by providing its unique id to remove it from persistent storage.
Delete a saved note by its id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The id of the note to delete, as returned by add_note or list_notes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Delete' does signal a destructive action, but the description does not state whether deletion is permanent, what happens for invalid or missing ids, or what response is returned—important gaps for a mutation tool with no output schema.
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?
The description is a single short sentence that front-loads the action and target. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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?
For a one-parameter tool with complete schema coverage, the core call shape is clear: the agent knows what to do and what id to pass. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits return/error behavior and permanence, leaving it minimally complete for a destructive operation.
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?
The input schema already fully documents the only parameter, including its origin ('as returned by add_note or list_notes'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description's 'by its id' adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Delete'), a resource ('a saved note'), and the mechanism ('by its id'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling add_note and list_notes tools without requiring the agent to infer intent from the tool name.
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?
The description implies the tool is for removing an existing saved note, and the 'saved note' wording indicates the note must already exist. However, it does not explicitly explain when to choose this over add_note/list_notes or mention that the id should be obtained from those tools, so usage guidance is mostly implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.