Delete a Temporal schedule by its schedule ID to stop future workflow executions. Optionally provide the namespace; otherwise uses the server default.
Delete a schedule
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| namespace | No | Temporal namespace for this operation; omit to use the server default | |
| schedule_id | Yes | The schedule ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.1Input schema / properties / namespaceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Temporal namespace for this operation; omit to use the server default",
+ "enum": [
+ "default"
+ ],
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.9.0v1.5.0v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether deletion is permanent, idempotent, whether it fails if the schedule is already gone or currently running, what permissions are required, or what happens to in-flight executions. Only the bare implication of a destructive write is conveyed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. There is no filler, yet also no useful content beyond restating the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover permanence, error/idempotency behavior, and permission requirements. None of this is present, leaving an agent unable to call it safely with confidence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (schedule_id and namespace) are already documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format, syntax, or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource ('Delete a schedule'), so an agent can tell what it does. However, it adds nothing beyond the tool name and gives no differentiation from sibling operations like cancel_workflow, terminate_workflow, or pause_schedule, leaving the precise semantic (permanent removal vs. cancellation of running executions) unclear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings such as pause_schedule, trigger_schedule, and terminate_workflow, an agent gets no signal about whether deletion is permanent, whether it should be preferred over pausing, or what prerequisites exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.