Delete a specific note by ID within a GoHighLevel location. Use this to remove outdated or incorrect notes from contacts or records.
Delete Note Endpoint: DELETE /notes/{id} (Version header: v3; source: v3/objects-v3.json) OAuth scopes: notes.write
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Note Id | |
| locationId | Yes | Location Id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value with the OAuth scope (notes.write) and API version/source, but omits whether the delete is permanent or soft (the existence of ghl_object_restore_note implies recoverability) and what happens to attachments and relations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short lines, operation name front-loaded, no filler. The endpoint/version/source parenthetical is slightly metadata-heavy for an agent's decision-making but it is compact and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter delete with full annotation coverage and full schema coverage, the description supplies endpoint, version, and auth scope, which is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is the reversibility question, which matters here because restore_note is a sibling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with plain 'Note Id' and 'Location Id' descriptions, so the schema does the parameter work. The endpoint string implies id is a path parameter, but the description adds no meaning about the required locationId or any format constraints beyond the examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Delete Note') and backs it with the concrete endpoint DELETE /notes/{id}, so the operation is unambiguous. Sibling tools (ghl_object_get_note, ghl_object_update_note, ghl_object_create_note) are clearly differentiated by name, but the description itself does not call out the distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus ghl_object_delete_record or ghl_object_restore_note, and no prerequisites mentioned (both id and locationId are required, yet locationId never appears in the description). The only implied usage is what 'Delete Note' conveys by itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.