google-tasks-mcp-server

タスク削除

delete-task

Destructive

Delete a task permanently by providing its ID. Irreversible action removes the task from your list.

Instructions

タスクを削除する。取り消せない。

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": {
      "task": "<task>"
    },
    "name": "delete-task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`task`	Yes	タスクの ID。list-tasks で取得できる。
`tasklist`	No	タスクリストの ID。既定のリストは '@default'。ID は list-tasklists で取得できる。	@default

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 24, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true. The description adds '取り消せない' (cannot be undone), which is useful but not substantially broader than the annotation. No additional behavioral details are disclosed, such as cascading deletes or permission requirements.

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?

The description is compact—two sentences, both reasonably informative. The 'cannot be undone' warning is a valuable addition and the text is appropriately front-loaded. It loses one point because the core phrase largely mirrors the tool name and title.

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 simple, destructive task with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It states the operation and warns of irreversibility. It could be more complete by mentioning when to prefer clear-completed-tasks for bulk deletion, but this not essential for basic invocation.

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?

The schema has 100% parameter descriptions, including where to obtain task and tasklist IDs and the '@default' value for tasklist. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool deletes a task using a specific verb and resource, and the warning '取り消せない' reinforces the intent. It is distinguished from delete-tasklist and clear-completed-tasks by the explicit 'task' resource, though it doesn't further describe scope or side effects.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clear-completed-tasks or delete-task-list. The description merely states the action, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name and schema.

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

Deploy Server