Skip to main content
Glama

note_delete

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a specific note from the Saga MCP project tracker by providing its ID, helping maintain organized project documentation.

Instructions

Delete a note by ID.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesNote ID

Implementation Reference

  • The function `handleNoteDelete` implements the logic to delete a note by its ID and log the activity.
    function handleNoteDelete(args: Record<string, unknown>) {
      const db = getDb();
      const id = args.id as number;
    
      const note = db.prepare('SELECT * FROM notes WHERE id = ?').get(id) as Record<string, unknown> | undefined;
      if (!note) throw new Error(`Note ${id} not found`);
    
      db.prepare('DELETE FROM notes WHERE id = ?').run(id);
      logActivity(db, 'note', id, 'deleted', null, null, null, `Note '${note.title}' deleted`);
    
      return { id, title: note.title, deleted: true };
    }
  • The schema definition for the `note_delete` tool.
      name: 'note_delete',
      description: 'Delete a note by ID.',
      annotations: { title: 'Delete Note', readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: true, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: false },
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          id: { type: 'integer', description: 'Note ID' },
        },
        required: ['id'],
      },
    },
  • The registration of the `note_delete` handler within the `handlers` object.
    export const handlers: Record<string, ToolHandler> = {
      note_save: handleNoteSave,
      note_list: handleNoteList,
      note_search: handleNoteSearch,
      note_delete: handleNoteDelete,
    };
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds context by specifying the deletion is by ID, which clarifies the targeting mechanism. It doesn't contradict annotations, and while it doesn't detail side effects (e.g., data removal), it aligns with the destructive nature implied by annotations.

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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words, front-loading the core action ('Delete a note'). It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (simple deletion with one parameter), annotations cover key behavioral traits (destructive, idempotent), and schema fully documents the input. However, with no output schema, the description doesn't explain return values (e.g., success confirmation), leaving a minor gap for a destructive operation.

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%, with the 'id' parameter fully documented in the schema as 'Note ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and target resource ('a note by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'note_save' or 'subtask_delete' beyond the resource name, missing explicit sibling distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., note must exist), exclusions, or related tools like 'note_list' for finding IDs, leaving usage context unclear.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/spranab/saga-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server