Skip to main content
Glama

Vault Delete

vault_delete

Delete a single file from a project vault, committing the removal so it remains recoverable via git history. Supports idempotent retries for already-deleted paths; directories are rejected.

Instructions

Delete a single file from the vault (destructive; recoverable via git).

Removes one file and, by default, commits the deletion so it stays recoverable from git history (git revert / git show). Files only — directories are rejected. A non-existent path is an error, unless idempotency_key is set (then a retry against an already-gone file is a no-op success).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesRelative path to the file within the project.
commitNoMust be True (the default). Unlike ``vault_write``, this tool has no deferred mode: it neither uses the commit queue (a delete and a recreate inside one tick would collapse to a single state) nor leaves the removal uncommitted, which is the indefinite deferral ADR-018 §4 removed. ``commit=False`` is rejected with an explanation rather than silently upgraded — see the ADR's 2026-08-09 amendment.
projectYesProject slug or '_meta' for cross-project content.
idempotency_keyNoOptional at-most-once token. If set, a retry with the same key is a no-op after the first delete (ADR-013), which also makes deleting an already-removed file succeed. Empty (default) disables idempotency.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv3.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / commit / description
      Previous value: -"If True (default), stage + commit the deletion. If False,\nunlink on disk but leave the removal staged for a later\n``vault_commit`` (or obsidian-git). Same durability contract as\n``vault_write``."New value: +"Must be True (the default). Unlike ``vault_write``, this\ntool has no deferred mode: it neither uses the commit queue\n(a delete and a recreate inside one tick would collapse to a\nsingle state) nor leaves the removal uncommitted, which is\nthe indefinite deferral ADR-018 §4 removed. ``commit=False``\nis rejected with an explanation rather than silently\nupgraded — see the ADR's 2026-08-09 amendment."
  2. Addedv1.41.1

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, which is odd for a delete tool. The description compensates by explicitly stating the operation is destructive, recoverable via git, commits by default, rejects directories, and errors on non-existent paths unless idempotency_key is set. It also discloses the commit=False rejection behavior. This adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations, though the annotation contradiction is notable.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear opening sentence, then a compact paragraph covering behavior and edge cases. It is dense but not bloated; every sentence adds value. The only minor issue is the heavy use of ADR references and parentheticals, which could be slightly streamlined, but overall it is efficient and front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (destructive operation, commit behavior, idempotency, edge cases) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential behavioral aspects: what gets deleted, what happens to the commit, how errors are handled, and how retries behave. The output schema handles return values, so nothing critical is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the commit parameter's relationship to vault_write and ADR-018, and clarifies the idempotency_key's retry semantics. This goes beyond baseline schema coverage, earning a 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a single file from the vault', and immediately flags the destructive nature and recoverability via git. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it handles files only and rejects directories, and by contrasting with vault_write's deferred mode. This is unambiguous and clearly scoped.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool (delete a single file), what it does not do (directories rejected, no deferred mode), and how it differs from vault_write. It also explains the idempotency_key behavior for retries, giving an agent clear conditions for when a non-existent path is acceptable. This is strong usage guidance.

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