google-keep-mcp

trash_note

Move a note to the trash using its unique ID. Clean up your Google Keep by removing unwanted notes.

Instructions

Move a note to the trash.

Args: note_id: The ID of the note to trash.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "note_id": "<note_id>"
    },
    "name": "trash_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 16, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects attachments, or returns any confirmation. The existence of sibling 'restore_note' hints at reversibility, but the description itself is silent.

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 very concise, using a single sentence and an Args block. It is front-loaded with the action. However, a more structured format (e.g., separating returns, examples) could improve readability without adding bulk.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is minimal. It does not mention the output schema (which exists according to context), nor does it address edge cases or related operations. With sibling tools suggesting reversibility, adding that relationship would vastly improve completeness.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides a brief explanation for the sole parameter: 'note_id: The ID of the note to trash.' This clarifies the parameter's role beyond the bare schema, but lacks details like format or constraints.

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: 'Move a note to the trash.' The verb 'trash' is specific and implies moving to a recycle bin rather than permanent deletion, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'delete_note' or 'restore_note', leaving some ambiguity.

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. For example, it does not differentiate from 'delete_note' (permanent deletion) or 'restore_note' (undo). An agent must infer context from sibling names alone.

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

Deploy Server