Dayze — Life Context

Delete Event (calendar remove)

delete_event

Destructive

Reversibly archives one owned event. Required event_id and request_id. Returns the prior row in deleted for compatibility, changed, restore_id and life_state_rebuilt. All food, people and asset links are preserved. Restore with restore_event. Replays perform no additional action. ($0.10; API key required)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`event_id`	Yes	UUID of a calendar event the authenticated user owns
`request_id`	Yes	Required client idempotency key; a replay returns the first result.
`idempotency_key`	No	Alias for request_id.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`account`	No	The Dayze account this data belongs to. With more than one Dayze connection, name it in the answer.
`deleted`	Yes	A Dayze calendar event record.
`event_id`	Yes
`provenance`	No	Which connector wrote the record and which connected Dayze account received it.
`food_deleted_ids`	Yes
`life_state_rebuilt`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 3, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / account

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "The Dayze account this data belongs to. With more than one Dayze connection, name it in the answer.",
+  "properties": {
+    "display_name": {
+      "description": "Account display name.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "handle": {
+      "description": "Account handle, e.g. @goh.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "description": "How to disclose the account to the user.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "qa_fixture": {
+      "description": "True for a known QA test account: its records are fixture data, not a real life.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "handle",
+    "display_name",
+    "qa_fixture",
+    "note"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / provenance

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "Which connector wrote the record and which connected Dayze account received it.",
+  "properties": {
+    "account": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "description": "The Dayze account this data belongs to. With more than one Dayze connection, name it in the answer.",
+      "properties": {
+        "display_name": {
+          "description": "Account display name.",
+          "type": [
+            "string",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "handle": {
+          "description": "Account handle, e.g. @goh.",
+          "type": [
+            "string",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "note": {
+          "description": "How to disclose the account to the user.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "qa_fixture": {
+          "description": "True for a known QA test account: its records are fixture data, not a real life.",
+          "type": "boolean"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "handle",
+        "display_name",
+        "qa_fixture",
+        "note"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "channel": {
+      "description": "Always mcp_connector.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "connector": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "kind": {
+          "description": "oauth or api_key.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "name": {
+          "description": "The connected app or API-key label shown to the account owner.",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "kind",
+        "name"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "source": {
+      "description": "chatgpt for ChatGPT OAuth writes; mcp for another OAuth app or API key.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "source",
+    "channel",
+    "connector",
+    "account"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 29, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / request_id / description

Previous value: -"Client idempotency key (retries return original result)."New value: +"Required client idempotency key; a replay returns the first result."

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 16, 2026

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "event_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "event_id",
+  "request_id"
+]

changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -falseNew value: +true
```

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alias for request_id.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / request_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Client idempotency key (retries return original result).",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 1, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / food_deleted_ids

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "event_id",
-  "deleted",
-  "life_state_rebuilt"
-]New value: +[
+  "event_id",
+  "deleted",
+  "food_deleted_ids",
+  "life_state_rebuilt"
+]

AddedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: reversibility, preserved food/people/asset links, replay being a no-op, restore path, and cost/auth requirements ($0.10; API key required). The only tension is that destructiveHint=true is framed as harmless archival, which could soften an agent's caution before confirming with the user, though the two are not strictly contradictory.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and reversibility, and most sentences carry distinct information. The enumeration of return fields (deleted, changed, restore_id, life_state_rebuilt) duplicates the output schema and is the one expendable clause.

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 mutating tool with annotations, an output schema, and full param coverage, the description supplies the missing pieces: reversibility, link preservation, idempotency behavior, restore path, cost, and auth. The remaining gap is sibling differentiation from archive_event.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning by stating that both event_id and request_id are required and that a replay returns the first result. The idempotency_key alias is left to the schema, but that is a minor omission.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Reversibly archives one owned event.' The word 'one' and 'owned' pin the cardinality and authorization boundary. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling archive_event, which reads as the same operation, so an agent cannot route between them from the description alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It names the undo path ('Restore with restore_event'), which is useful recovery guidance, and implies use when the user wants an event removed. But it never states when to prefer this over archive_event, update_event, or delete_food/delete_place-style siblings, and gives no prerequisites beyond ownership.

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

All Dayze — Life Context tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.