google-calendar-mcp

delete_event

Delete a Google Calendar event by event ID. Optionally send updates to attendees to inform them of the cancellation.

Instructions

カレンダーイベントを削除します

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": {
      "eventId": "<eventId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`eventId`	Yes	削除するイベントのID
`calendarId`	No	カレンダーID	primary
`sendUpdates`	No	参加者への通知設定	all

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must communicate behavioral traits. While 'delete' implies destructive action, it doesn't disclose whether the deletion is permanent, affects attendees (related to the 'sendUpdates' parameter), or how recurring events are handled.

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?

The description is a single, compact sentence with no wasted words. It effectively conveys the core action without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple delete operation, the description covers the primary purpose, but given the sibling 'delete_recurring_instance' and the 'sendUpdates' default, additional context would help. The lack of annotations and output schema leaves behavioral details undocumented.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters, including the enum for 'sendUpdates'. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb '削除' (delete) and resource 'カレンダーイベント' (calendar event), clearly identifying the operation. However, it doesn't distinguish between deleting a single event or a recurring series, and the sibling tool 'delete_recurring_instance' suggests a potential ambiguity.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description doesn't explain when to use this tool versus 'update_recurring_event' or 'delete_recurring_instance', nor does it mention any prerequisites or context.

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

Deploy Server