Skip to main content
Glama

delete_checkin_schedule

Destructive

Delete a recurring check-in schedule. (confirm-gated: previews until confirm: true)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "scheduleId": "<scheduleId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_checkin_schedule"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
confirmNoMust be true to actually execute. If false/omitted, returns a preview only.
scheduleIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it is confirm-gated and will only preview until confirm: true is set. This clearly discloses the safety workflow. It does not specify irreversibility or side effects (e.g., what happens to existing check-ins), but the core behavior is well communicated.

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?

Two short sentences with zero wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the critical confirmation caveat in a clear parenthetical.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, the destructive annotation, and the lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it deletes and the confirm-gated preview. The missing explanation of scheduleId is a minor gap for a simple delete operation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 50%: the confirm parameter is documented in the schema, but scheduleId has no description. The tool description adds no meaning for scheduleId beyond the tool name, failing to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a recurring check-in schedule'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like upsert_checkin_schedule, but the verb itself differentiates it from creation/update operations.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as upsert_checkin_schedule or list_checkin_schedules. The only usage-like detail is the procedural confirm-gate, which is about how to invoke rather than when to choose this tool.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.