google-calendar-mcp

delete_recurring_instance

Remove one specific occurrence of a recurring Google Calendar event while keeping the rest of the series intact.

Instructions

定期イベントの特定のインスタンス（1回分）のみを削除します

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_recurring_instance"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`eventId`	Yes	定期イベントの親イベントID
`calendarId`	No	カレンダーID	primary
`sendUpdates`	No	参加者への通知設定	all
`instanceDate`	No	削除するインスタンスの日付（YYYY-MM-DD形式）
`instanceDateTime`	No	削除するインスタンスの日時（ISO 8601形式）

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of deleting only a single occurrence rather than the entire recurring event, which is valuable. However, it does not mention any side effects (e.g., attendee notifications via sendUpdates), requirements, or whether the operation is reversible. The description adds some context beyond the schema but lacks depth.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the tool's core function. It is front-loaded with the action and scope, with no wasted words or redundancy. This is appropriately sized for the tool's purpose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite having 5 parameters including two alternative date/time identifiers (instanceDate and instanceDateTime), the description does not explain how to choose between them or what happens if both are provided. With no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves significant ambiguity about usage. It is not complete enough for an agent to reliably invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific information; it does not clarify the relationship between instanceDate and instanceDateTime or explain when to use each. The schema already provides detailed parameter descriptions, but the tool description adds no extra semantic value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: deleting only a specific instance of a recurring event. It uses a specific verb ('削除します') and resource ('定期イベントの特定のインスタンス'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling delete_event by emphasizing '1回分のみ' (only one occurrence).

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?

The description implies usage for recurring events by mentioning '定期イベントの特定のインスタンス', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_event for the whole series. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or comparison with sibling tools, so the usage context is only implied.

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

Deploy Server