google-workspace-mcp-advanced

delete_event

Delete an event from Google Calendar by providing the user's email and event ID. Supports dry-run preview before deletion.

Instructions

Deletes an existing event.

Args: user_google_email (str): The user's Google email address. Required. event_id (str): The ID of the event to delete. calendar_id (str): Calendar ID (default: 'primary'). dry_run (bool): If True, returns a preview and does not delete the event. Defaults to True.

Returns: str: Confirmation message of the successful event deletion.

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": {
      "user_google_email": "<user_google_email>",
      "event_id": "<event_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`user_google_email`	Yes
`event_id`	Yes
`calendar_id`	No	primary
`dry_run`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.10Jun 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description lacks transparency: it states 'Deletes an existing event' but the dry_run parameter defaults to True, meaning the default behavior is a preview, not deletion. This contradicts the primary claim and misleads about the tool's action.

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 structured as a clear docstring with Args and Returns sections, front-loading the purpose. It is moderately concise, though the parameter descriptions could be slightly tighter.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers all parameters and return type, but lacks context on error conditions (e.g., event not found), permissions required, and the implications of dry_run=False. The tool's complexity is moderate, so this is acceptable but incomplete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The description adds meaning to all four parameters beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). It explains the purpose of each parameter, including the dry_run preview behavior, and notes defaults.

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 it deletes an existing event, using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like create_event and modify_event, which are for adding or altering events.

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 (e.g., modify_event for non-destructive changes). There is no mention of prerequisites like event ownership or required authorization.

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

Deploy Server