Delete a note by its ID to remove outdated or unwanted notes; xonta-gate applies budget limits and audit logging to the action.
Deletes a note.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "delete_note"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses nothing: not whether the deletion is permanent or recoverable, not whether permissions or confirmation are required, not what happens if the id is missing or unknown. For a destructive mutation this is a serious omission.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. Nothing is padded, yet nothing useful is added either.
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 destructive tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented id, the definition is far too thin. An agent has no way to know the consequences of calling it or what identifier format to supply.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single 'id' parameter has no type-level description in the schema, so the description needed to explain what identifier is expected. It says nothing, leaving the agent to guess whether 'id' is a note id, page id, or slug, and required count of 0 makes the omission more confusing.
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 and resource ('Deletes a note'), so an agent knows the operation is a removal of a note object. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name delete_note and gives no scope detail (single note by id? permanent?) to separate it from siblings like read_note or fetch_page.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and critically no warning that this is the destructive counterpart to read_note. The agent must infer entirely from the verb that this is the removal path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.