Skip to main content
Glama
MAG-Cie

MCP for Microsoft To Do

delete_linked_resource

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a linked resource from a Microsoft To Do task by specifying the list, task, and resource IDs.

Instructions

Delete a linked resource from a task.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
list_idYes
task_idYes
resource_idYes

Implementation Reference

  • The actual handler function that calls Microsoft Graph API to DELETE a linked resource from a task.
    export async function deleteLinkedResource(
      listId: string,
      taskId: string,
      resourceId: string
    ): Promise<void> {
      await graphFetch<void>(
        `/me/todo/lists/${enc(listId)}/tasks/${enc(taskId)}/linkedResources/${enc(resourceId)}`,
        { method: "DELETE" }
      );
    }
  • Zod schema validating inputs: list_id, task_id, resource_id (all strings, all required).
    delete_linked_resource: z.object({
      list_id: z.string(),
      task_id: z.string(),
      resource_id: z.string(),
    }),
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint and idempotentHint. Description adds no additional behavioral context, such as error handling, side effects, or what happens if resource does not exist.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but sacrifices necessary detail. Could be considered too terse for the information needed.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given 3 undocumented parameters, a destructive action, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. Lacks context on usage, results, and error conditions.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, yet description does not explain the meaning of list_id, task_id, or resource_id. Parameters are completely opaque.

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?

The description clearly states the action 'Delete' and the resource 'linked resource from a task', which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_checklist_item.

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 information about when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites or conditions mentioned. Siblings like create_linked_resource exist but no guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/MAG-Cie/mcp-microsoft-todo'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server