Skip to main content
Glama

Kamy

by dev.kamy

Delete a schedule

delete_schedule
Destructive

Permanently delete a recurring schedule so it stops firing. There is no undo and no trash — recreate it with create_schedule if it is deleted by mistake, so confirm with the user before calling this on a schedule you did not just create. If the intent is only to pause it, do not use this tool: a schedule can be switched off and back on again via its enabled flag on the REST endpoint (PATCH /v1/schedules/{id}), which this MCP surface does not expose. Documents already produced by past firings are unaffected and remain available through list_renders. Returns { deleted: true }, or 404 if the id does not belong to this account.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
schedule_idYesSchedule id (UUID) from create_schedule or list_schedules.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description adds value by emphasizing no undo and no trash, and clarifies that past documents are unaffected. However, it does not elaborate on authentication requirements or rate limits, which could be relevant for a destructive operation. The description aligns with and enriches annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: permanent deletion warning with recovery path, alternative to pausing, and effect on past documents with return value. Front-loaded with the core action and consequence.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter schema and the presence of destructiveHint annotation, the description fully covers all aspects: input provenance, safety warnings, alternative behavior, and return format. No gaps remain.

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. The description adds value by explaining that the schedule_id comes from `create_schedule` or `list_schedules`, which clarifies the parameter's provenance beyond the schema's 'UUID' description. This is helpful context, earning a 4.

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 clearly states the verb 'delete' and the resource 'recurring schedule', and explicitly distinguishes it from pausing (via the `enabled` flag) and from `create_schedule` for recovery. It differentiates from siblings like `list_schedules` and `create_schedule` by focusing solely on deletion.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit guidance on when to use (permanent deletion intent) and when not to use (if only pausing is needed, do not use this tool). Offers a concrete alternative action (PATCH /v1/schedules/{id} via `enabled` flag) and recommends user confirmation before calling on pre-existing schedules.

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

All Kamy toolsInspect
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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action or resource with minimal ambiguity. For example, `render_pdf`, `render_docx`, `render_xlsx`, and `pptx` are clearly different output formats, while `merge_pdfs`, `split_pdf`, and `edit_pdf` target different PDF operations. The signature tools (`create_signature_request`, `get_signature_request`, etc.) are also clearly separated by lifecycle stage. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a highly consistent `verb_noun` pattern throughout, such as `create_signature_request`, `get_signature_request`, `list_signature_requests`, and `remind_signature`. This pattern is applied uniformly across all major domains (render, signature, template, webhook, trace), making the API predictable and easy for an agent to navigate.

Tool Count4/5

With 59 tools, this is a large surface area, but it is justified by the breadth of functionality: document rendering in multiple formats, e-signatures, template management, webhooks, scheduling, and a crypto/audit trail. While large, each tool has a distinct purpose, and the count feels appropriate for the scope of a comprehensive document automation API. A surface this large risks being overwhelming, but the internal organization is logical.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is remarkably complete, covering the full lifecycle for multiple domains. For e-signatures, there are tools for CRUD (requests, templates), sending (individual, bulk, envelope), monitoring (get, list), reminders, and certificates. For documents, it covers creation, conversion, editing, merging, splitting, and verification. The inclusion of utility tools like `get_started`, `validate_payload`, and the audit trail tools further solidifies this as a well-considered, production-ready API surface.

Resources