markdown-vault-mcp

Delete Note

delete

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently remove a note or attachment from the Markdown vault by path; optionally delete only if the current version matches a supplied Etag.

Instructions

Permanently delete a note or attachment; only git history can bring it back.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Path of the note or attachment.
`if_match`	No	Etag from read; the file is then deleted only as that version. Omit to delete it as it is.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv6.1.0Nov 2, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / if_match / description

Previous value: -"Optional etag obtained from a previous 'read' call.\nWhen provided, the deletion only proceeds if the file has\nnot been modified since that read (optimistic concurrency).\nOmit to delete unconditionally."New value: +"Etag from read; the file is then deleted only as that version.\nOmit to delete it as it is."

changedInput schema / properties / path / description

Previous value: -"Relative path to the document or attachment to delete."New value: +"Path of the note or attachment."

Addedv4.0.0Aug 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the genuinely new fact that recovery is only possible through git history. It does not explain how if_match changes the failure behavior, but the critical irreversibility is disclosed.

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 short sentence with the most important consequence ('Permanently delete') front-loaded and the recovery caveat second. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description supplies the one thing annotations cannot: the irreversibility and its git-history escape hatch. Only the conditional-delete behavior of if_match is left entirely to the schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'path' and 'if_match' (including its conditional/etag semantics) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, 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 scope ('Permanently delete a note or attachment'), which is far more informative than the bare tool name 'delete'. It implicitly separates itself from non-destructive siblings like move_folder or rename, but never names an alternative explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the removal operation when a note should no longer exist. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing, no note about when to prefer rename/move_folder to relocate rather than delete, and no prerequisite guidance.

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