Skip to main content
Glama
truaxki

MCP Notes Server

by truaxki

delete-note

Remove an existing note by specifying its name. This tool is part of the MCP Notes Server, which manages notes with CRUD operations and resource-based access.

Instructions

Delete an existing note

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes

Implementation Reference

  • Executes the 'delete-note' tool: validates input, deletes via storage, returns confirmation.
    async def _handle_delete_note(self, arguments: Optional[Dict]) -> List[types.TextContent]:
        """Process note deletion requests."""
        if not arguments:
            raise ValueError("Missing arguments")
    
        note_name = arguments.get("name")
        if not note_name:
            raise ValueError("Missing name")
    
        deleted_note = self.storage.delete_note(note_name)
        return [
            types.TextContent(
                type="text",
                text=f"Deleted note '{note_name}'\nLast modified: {deleted_note['modified_at']}",
            )
        ]
  • Registers the 'delete-note' tool with MCP including description and input schema.
    types.Tool(
        name="delete-note",
        description="Delete an existing note",
        inputSchema={
            "type": "object",
            "properties": {
                "name": {"type": "string"},
            },
            "required": ["name"],
        },
    )
  • Core deletion logic: removes note from in-memory dict and saves to JSON file.
    def delete_note(self, name: str) -> dict:
        """Remove a note and return its data."""
        if name not in self.notes:
            raise ValueError(f"Note '{name}' not found")
        
        deleted_note = self.notes.pop(name)
        self.save_notes()
        return deleted_note
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a note, implying a destructive mutation, but fails to address critical aspects like permissions needed, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, error handling, or confirmation requirements. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail in other dimensions.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks essential context such as behavioral traits, parameter details, and output expectations, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an agent.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no information about the 'name' parameter beyond what the schema indicates (a required string). It doesn't explain what 'name' refers to (e.g., note title, ID, filename) or its format, leaving the parameter's meaning unclear.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('an existing note'), making the tool's function unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'update-note' in terms of destructive vs. non-destructive operations, which would require explicit differentiation for a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update-note' or prerequisites such as note existence. It lacks explicit context about usage scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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

Related 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/truaxki/mcp-notes'

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