DELETE /calendar/events/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| query | No | Optional query overrides for endpoints with sparse parameter schemas. | |
| brand_id | No | ||
| workspace_id | No | Workspace to operate in. Do not ask the user for this UUID — call aidelly_list_workspaces and use the `id` of the matching workspace. Optional for read operations; required when creating content. | |
| idempotency_key | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / workspace_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Workspace to operate in. Do not ask the user for this UUID — call aidelly_list_workspaces and use the `id` of the matching workspace. Optional for read operations; required when creating content."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructive operation. The description adds no further behavioral context, but since annotations cover the safety profile, a neutral score is appropriate.
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 extremely short but lacks essential content. It is under-specified rather than concise, providing no useful information beyond the endpoint path.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success status, error handling). The tool's complexity is moderate, but the description is incomplete for effective use.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 40%, and the required parameters 'id' and 'idempotency_key' lack descriptions. The description provides no additional meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low 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 'DELETE /calendar/events/{id}' is barely more than a tautology; it repeats the HTTP method and path without explaining that this tool deletes a calendar event. While the HTTP verb implies deletion, the purpose is not explicitly stated.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like patching or getting events. Missing prerequisites or context for deletion, such as requiring the event ID or idempotency key.
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.