Remove a note by ID, sending it to the Nextcloud trash for recovery from the Files app until the trash is emptied.
Delete a note. The note file goes to the Nextcloud trash, so it is recoverable from the Files app until the trash is emptied, but this server cannot restore it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description genuinely adds beyond that by disclosing the soft-delete behavior: the file lands in the Nextcloud trash, is recoverable from the Files app, and cannot be restored by this server.
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?
A single tight sentence with the destructive action front-loaded followed by the recovery caveat. Every clause earns its place; no redundancy.
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 delete tool whose annotations already carry the destructive/idempotent profile, the recovery semantics are the key missing context and they are provided. The only gap is the unexplained 'id' parameter, which is a modest omission given there is no output schema to worry about.
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 single 'id' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, leaving the description to compensate — but it says nothing about what 'id' identifies (a note id) or its expected form. With one required, undocumented parameter, the description fails to add the needed meaning.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a note') matched to the tool name. It is unambiguous against siblings like update_note or append_to_note, though it does not explicitly name any alternative to distinguish itself.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; the description only explains what happens after the call. It never mentions prerequisites (e.g., note must exist) or any alternative to deleting, such as emptying/ignoring the note.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.