amazing-marvin-complete-mcp

delete_task

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently remove a Marvin task or document through the API when the user explicitly requests irreversible deletion; bypasses the app's trash, so use the app if undo may be needed.

Instructions

Delete a task/document PERMANENTLY via /doc/delete (Full Access Token). Marvin's trash is client-side — an API deletion bypasses it and CANNOT be undone (deleting in the app instead puts the item in the trash, where it can be restored — prefer the app when undo matters). Only use when the user explicitly wants a deletion. Never delete the generator document of a recurring task here (risk of the whole series disappearing without the app's cleanup logic) — remove the recurrence in the Marvin app instead. THE APP'S VIEW (live-tested 2026-09-12, PWA + Windows desktop app 1.70.0): an API deletion is NOT rendered in an open Marvin client — neither waiting nor switching views helps. First confirm the server with get_children on the parent (the task should be missing), then ask the user to reload the client BEFORE the row is touched in the app: F5 in the web app/PWA, restart of the desktop app. Editing the stale row in the app can RECREATE the document via the client's conflict resolution (observed once, 2026-09-12, in one of the two clients — which one is not recorded: row still shown after the deletion, unscheduled with the x button in the app, document back on a new _rev 84-97 s after the deletion; reported upstream). If the user has the app open: suggest deleting IN THE APP first (goes to the trash, no conflict with the app's own copy); API deletion when the user explicitly wants it, and then with the reload rule above.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`item_id`	Yes	ID of the document to delete

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Aug 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation: irreversible PERMANENT deletion, trash bypass, stale-client rendering behavior, conflict-resolution recreation risk, required reload procedure, and full-access-token requirement. Adds genuinely valuable operational context not present in structured data.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Severely overlong and meandering: parenthetical asides, a dated live-testing narrative, and an unrecorded-client anecdote bury the critical actionable rules. Front-loading is decent but the volume of incident detail dilutes the core guidance.

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?

Covers destructive semantics, auth requirements, recovery limits, and post-deletion verification steps; output schema exists so return values needn't be explained. The verbosity is a style issue more than a completeness gap.

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 coverage is 100% and there is only one required param (item_id), so the schema fully carries parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, warranting the baseline 3.

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 task/document via /doc/delete) and distinguishes itself sharply from in-app deletion by noting the client-side trash bypass. No sibling ambiguity remains.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('only when the user explicitly wants a deletion'), when-not (recurring task generators, cases where undo matters), and a named preferred alternative (delete in the app for trash/restore behavior).

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