time-messenger-mcp-server

delete_channel_category

Delete a custom channel sidebar category to remove it; its channels return to the default categories.

Instructions

Delete a custom channel sidebar category. Its channels return to the default categories.

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": {
      "team_id": "<team_id>",
      "category_id": "<category_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_channel_category"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`team_id`	Yes	Team ID.
`category_id`	Yes	Custom category ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.4.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose one important side effect (channels fall back to default categories). It does not state whether deletion is permanent/irreversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to the category's ordering metadata, which matters 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the consequence immediately following. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter delete with no output schema, the description covers the action and its visible side effect, and the schema covers both parameters. The remaining gap is the lack of irreversibility/permission context, which is notable given no annotations exist.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the qualifier "custom" for the category, which marginally clarifies that default categories cannot be targeted, but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete a custom channel sidebar category") and adds what happens to the contained channels, which distinguishes it from create/update/list/reorder siblings. It does not name an alternative explicitly, but an agent can tell it apart from the other category tools by the verb alone.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the destructive verb and the side-effect note about channels returning to default categories, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as move_channel_to_category or update_channel_category. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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