Sweeppea MCP

delete_calendar_event

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently delete a calendar event. Use fetch_calendar_events first to get the event_token. WARNING: This action cannot be undone.

delete_calendar_event

When to use

Permanently delete a calendar event. Use fetch_calendar_events first to get the event_token. WARNING: This action cannot be undone.

Parameters to validate before calling

event_token (string, required) — The event token to delete (UUID format)

Notes

DESTRUCTIVE — IRREVERSIBLE. Always confirm with the user before calling. Explain what will be lost.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`event_token`	Yes	The event token to delete (UUID format)

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds that the action is irreversible, cannot be undone, and instructs the agent to explain what will be lost. This provides critical behavioral context for a destructive operation.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear 'When to use', 'Parameters', and 'Notes' sections. However, the first two sentences are duplicated verbatim in the 'When to use' section, adding minor redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the action, prerequisite, irreversibility, and required user confirmation. Nothing essential is missing.

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 already documents event_token fully (UUID format, required). The description adds valuable context by specifying how to obtain the token ('Use fetch_calendar_events first'), which is not in the schema. This justifies a score above the baseline 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('calendar event'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling delete tools like delete_file or delete_todo. It also states the permanent nature, making the scope unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly instructs to use fetch_calendar_events first to obtain the event_token, and includes a warning to always confirm with the user. However, it does not explicitly contrast with update_calendar_event or other alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Sweeppea MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools follow a clear resource+action pattern (fetch_* for lists, get_* for single items, create/update/delete for writes), making them distinguishable. A few near-overlaps exist (fetch_billing_transactions vs fetch_wallet_transactions, draw_winners vs schedule_drawing) but the descriptions clarify the boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case verb_noun, with fetch_ for list operations and get_ for single-item retrieval. Some verb variation (add_participant, count_participants, draw_winners, schedule_drawing) deviates from the dominant create/fetch/update/delete pattern but remains predictable and readable.

Tool Count1/5

With 83 tools, this is far beyond a well-scoped server (typically 3-15, with 25+ considered too many). Even though the platform has broad functionality, the sheer number of tools creates significant agent confusion and selection overhead.

Completeness4/5

The sweepstakes domain is thoroughly covered: lifecycle management, participants, groups, rules, drawings, winners, calendar, notes, todos, tickets, surveys, invoices, billing, files, and entry settings. A few minor gaps exist (e.g., no general participant field update, no archive action) but the surface is remarkably complete for its scope.

Resources

Need Help?