Cronometer MCP

delete_repeat_item

DestructiveIdempotent

Stop a recurring food item from logging again while preserving entries already recorded. Supply its repeat item ID from the repeated items list.

Instructions

Stop a food from repeating. Entries it already logged are kept.

Args: repeat_item_id: From get_repeated_items.

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": {
      "repeat_item_id": "<repeat_item_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_repeat_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repeat_item_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

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, but the description adds genuinely non-redundant blast-radius information: previously logged food entries are preserved. That is the key behavioral question for a destructive delete, and it is answered directly. It does not discuss reversibility or side effects on the repeat schedule beyond that.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the effect and immediately followed by the retention caveat. The Args block is terse and every line 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 single-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, the definition covers effect, data retention, and id provenance. Only error/staleness behavior is unaddressed, which is a minor gap given the output schema exists.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load; it does identify the id's origin (get_repeated_items), which is the most useful thing an agent needs. It does not state the type or what happens with an invalid/stale id. Format or error behavior is left undocumented.

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?

"Stop a food from repeating" states a specific verb+resource in domain terms, and "Entries it already logged are kept" delineates scope. It doesn't literally use "delete," but the effect is unambiguous and distinct from add_repeat_item and get_repeated_items. Minor deduction only for not naming a sibling explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The argument note "From get_repeated_items" names the prerequisite source, so an agent knows the required upstream call. There are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, which keeps it just below the top band.

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

Deploy Server