Delete a recurring task and all its uncompleted future instances.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The recurring task's ID, as returned by create_recurring_task or list_recurring_tasks. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | ||
| title | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| variant | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": "5c3d2e1f0a9b8c7d6e5f4a3b2c1d0e9f"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"The recurring task's ID, as returned by create_recurring_task or list_recurring_tasks."Input schema / properties / id / examplesAdded value: +[
+ "5c3d2e1f0a9b8c7d6e5f4a3b2c1d0e9f"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that deletion affects the recurring task and its uncompleted future instances, adding detail beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It does not contradict the annotations; readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true are consistent with a delete operation.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is direct and front-loaded, with no redundant information.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter), the presence of a complete schema and output schema, and annotations indicating destructive behavior, the description sufficiently covers the operation's effect and scope.
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?
The input schema fully documents the 'id' parameter with a clear description of its source (create_recurring_task or list_recurring_tasks). The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific information, so it receives the baseline score for high schema coverage.
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?
The description uses a specific verb 'Delete' with the resource 'a recurring task' and specifies the scope 'all its uncompleted future instances', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_task and delete_recurring_calendar_event.
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?
The description implies usage for deleting recurring tasks, but does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as delete_task or mention when not to use it. The usage is clear from context, but there are no explicit exclusions or alternative references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear descriptions separating similar-sounding tools like create_calendar_event vs create_recurring_calendar_event. Shopping list operations (add, buy, remove, update) are clearly delineated.
All tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*, get_*, etc. Even special operations like store_memory, recall_memory, and skip_recommendation fit the pattern.
With 68 tools, this server vastly exceeds a reasonable scope; the instruction manual indicates 50+ tools is an extreme mismatch. The breadth suggests the server should be split into focused sub-servers (tasks, shopping, calendar, etc.) rather than a single monolithic interface.
The tool surface covers full CRUD/lifecycle for all major resources: tasks, shopping, calendar, contacts, documents, appliances, vehicles, pets, recipes, meal plans, subscriptions, and memories. Additional features like house review, weather, and profile round out the household management domain.