Remove a custom event definition and its payload validation without affecting existing automations that use the event name.
Delete a custom-event definition (DELETE /events/:id). Existing automations keep their trigger names; this only removes the definition + its payload validation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The event definition id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses non-obvious consequences: existing automations keep their trigger names and only the definition and validation are removed. This goes beyond a generic 'delete' statement, though it omits irreversibility and return-value details.
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?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the important side-effect caveat about automations is placed directly afterward. Every clause adds useful information.
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?
The tool is simple: one required parameter, fully described schema, and no output schema. The description adequately explains what is deleted and what is preserved, making the tool safe to invoke. A small gap is the lack of explicit confirmation about permanence or the response format.
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?
The input schema fully documents the single 'id' parameter with a clear description, and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, but none are needed given the schema's completeness.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Delete a custom-event definition', and includes the REST endpoint. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like delete_automation or delete_contact by scoping the resource as the event definition rather than the event data itself.
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?
The description clarifies the tool's exact scope, noting that automations retain their trigger names and only the definition plus payload validation are removed. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for different deletion scenarios, but the context makes the intended use clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.