Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-paperless-ngx

mcp-paperless-ngx

by tobee89
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Delete a document note

delete_document_note
Destructive

Remove a note from a document permanently by specifying the document ID and note ID. This irreversible action deletes the note immediately.

Instructions

Remove a note from a document. Not recoverable.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "note_id": "<note_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_document_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
note_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, and the description adds 'Not recoverable,' which is a useful permanence warning beyond the annotation. This gives an agent important behavioral context about irreversible side effects.

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?

Two short sentences that front-load the primary action and then add a critical safety warning. No unnecessary words or repetitive content.

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 simple, two-parameter destructive operation, the description plus annotations cover the essentatial safety and irreversibility aspects. While it omits return value details, it is still sufficiently complete for correct invocation in most cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter details. The property names id and note_id are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to clarify which id refers to the document vs. note, leaving some ambiguity.

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 states a specific action ('Remove a note from a document') and resource, making its purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_document and create_document_note by focusing on note deletion specifically.

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 given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as delete_document or list_document_note s. The context implies the intended use, but the description does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools