ha-nexus-agent

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Delete a calendar event

calendar_delete_event

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a calendar event or recurring instance by UID from calendars supporting deletion. Read-only calendars reject it and return ok: False.

Instructions

Delete a calendar event by its uid via WS calendar/event/delete.

Only works for calendar platforms that declare CalendarEntityFeature.DELETE_EVENT (e.g. local/CalDAV calendars); read-only integrations such as Google Calendar reject it, and this returns ok: False with HA's error instead of raising.

Use when: removing an event or a recurring instance from a calendar that supports deletion. Not for: creating an event — use calendar_create_event; not for read-only calendar integrations, which will fail here regardless of arguments. Returns: {"entity_id", "uid", "result": ..., "ok": True} on success. Errors: {"entity_id", "uid", "ok": False, "error": str(e)} when the platform rejects the deletion or the WS call otherwise raises.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`uid`	Yes	Event UID to delete, as returned by `calendar_list_events`.
`entity_id`	Yes	Calendar entity ID the event belongs to, e.g. 'calendar.family'.
`recurrence_id`	No	Narrows deletion to one instance of a recurring event. Omit to target the whole event/series.
`recurrence_range`	No	Extends `recurrence_id` deletion to a range, e.g. 'THISANDFUTURE'. Omit for a single-instance deletion.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.25.1Oct 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / entity_id / description

Added value: +"Calendar entity ID the event belongs to, e.g. 'calendar.family'."

addedInput schema / properties / recurrence_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Narrows deletion to one instance of a recurring event. Omit to target the whole event/series."
+}

addedInput schema / properties / recurrence_range

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Extends `recurrence_id` deletion to a range, e.g. 'THISANDFUTURE'. Omit for a single-instance deletion."
+}

addedInput schema / properties / uid / description

Added value: +"Event UID to delete, as returned by `calendar_list_events`."

First observedv0.3.0May 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds significant context beyond them: the `CalendarEntityFeature.DELETE_EVENT` platform gate, the fact that read-only integrations (e.g. Google Calendar) reject it, and the critical error contract that failures return `ok: False` rather than raising. This materially changes how an agent should handle the call.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

Well front-loaded with labeled sections (Use when / Not for / Returns / Errors) and no filler. Slight redundancy: the 'Returns' line restates the success shape even though an output schema exists, and the platform-gate sentence is a touch verbose.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive, entity-gated mutation tool, the definition covers the feature-gate prerequisite, failure mode, alternative tool, and return contract. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 all four parameters (uid, entity_id, recurrence_id, recurrence_range) are already documented in the schema. The description only references `uid` and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Delete a calendar event by its `uid`') and even names the underlying WS endpoint. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the `calendar_create_event` sibling, so an agent can identify it without inspecting other schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Not for' sections, naming the alternative tool (`calendar_create_event`) and the condition under which this tool will fail (read-only integrations regardless of arguments). Routing is unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server