amazing-marvin-complete-mcp

delete_task

DestructiveIdempotent

Permanently delete a task with no undo, bypassing the trash. Use only when the user explicitly requests irreversible removal.

Instructions

Delete a task permanently, with no trash and no undo. 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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive and non-read-only behavior, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: API deletion bypasses client-side trash, open clients do not reflect the deletion, stale rows can be recreated by the app, and server-side verification via get_children plus client reload is required. This is far more than the annotations provide.

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 long and highly detailed, but the length is largely justified by the destructive, irreversible nature of the operation and the complex client-sync risks. Key warnings are front-loaded in the first lines, though some later evidence-like details (e.g., exact _rev timestamps, 'reported upstream') could be trimmed without losing essential guidance.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description covers authentication token requirements, when not to use the tool, post-deletion verification steps, client reload instructions, and risks of stale client state. Given the destructive and irreversible nature, it is exceptionally complete for an agent to invoke safely and correctly.

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 input schema already fully describes item_id as 'ID of the document to delete' with 100% coverage. The description reinforces that the item is a task/document but does not add any new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific operation: permanently deleting a task/document via the /doc/delete endpoint, with explicit emphasis on no trash and no undo. It also distinguishes this from in-app deletion, which sends items to trash, and from removing a recurring task's generator document, which should be handled in the app.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use only when the user explicitly wants deletion, prefer in-app deletion when undo matters or the app is open, and never use for recurring task generator documents. It names concrete alternatives and the conditions for choosing them.

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