Cronometer MCP

delete_fast

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a recorded fast from your Cronometer account by specifying its fast ID from your fasting history. Use this to correct or clean up fasting logs.

Instructions

Remove a recorded fast.

Args: fast_id: The fast ID, from get_fasting_history.

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": {
      "fast_id": "<fast_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_fast"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fast_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description's 'Remove' aligns with that. It adds the useful context that the target is a 'recorded fast' and that the ID comes from get_fasting_history, but it does not disclose additional behavioral nuance such as irreversibility or side effects; the annotations cover the main safety signal.

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 extremely compact: one clear purpose sentence and a well-scoped Args line. There is no filler, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with a strong annotation set and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what is being deleted and where to get the ID; the main missing piece is explicit routing guidance relative to edit_fast or other mutation tools.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains the single parameter: 'The fast ID, from get_fasting_history.' This adds meaningful provenance beyond the bare integer title in the schema, which is enough for a one-parameter tool.

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 opens with 'Remove a recorded fast,' which is a specific verb plus a distinct resource, and clarifies that this acts on a historical fast rather than a generic fast. It is clear enough to separate from sibling remove_* tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative such as edit_fast.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus related tools like edit_fast or add_fast. The only usage hint is that fast_id comes from get_fasting_history, which is about parameter sourcing, not about choosing this tool over alternatives.

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

Deploy Server