Skip to main content
Glama
anoopt

Outlook Meetings Scheduler MCP Server

delete-event

Remove a calendar event from Microsoft Outlook by specifying its event ID using the MCP server tool for scheduling and managing meetings.

Instructions

Delete a calendar event

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eventIdYesID of the event to delete

Implementation Reference

  • The asynchronous handler function that performs the actual deletion of the calendar event using Microsoft Graph API. It checks authentication, retrieves event details, deletes the event, and returns appropriate success or error messages.
    async ({ eventId }) => {
      const { graph, userEmail, authError } = await getGraphConfig();
    
      if (authError) {
        return {
          content: [{ type: "text", text: `🔐 Authentication Required\n\n${authError}\n\nPlease complete the authentication and try again.` }]
        };
      }
    
      // First get the event details to confirm what's being deleted
      const event = await graph.getEvent(eventId, userEmail);
      
      if (!event) {
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: "Could not find the event to delete. Please check the event ID.",
            },
          ],
        };
      }
      
      // Delete the event
      const success = await graph.deleteEvent(eventId, userEmail);
      
      if (!success) {
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: "Failed to delete calendar event. Check the logs for details.",
            },
          ],
        };
      }
    
      // Format the result for response
      const successMessage = `Calendar event deleted successfully! Event ID: ${eventId}`;
    
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: successMessage,
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • Zod input schema defining the required 'eventId' parameter as a string with description.
    {
      eventId: z.string().describe("ID of the event to delete"),
    },
  • Registration of the 'delete-event' tool using registerTool, including name, description, input schema, and inline handler function.
    registerTool(
      server,
      "delete-event",
      "Delete a calendar event",
      {
        eventId: z.string().describe("ID of the event to delete"),
      },
      async ({ eventId }) => {
        const { graph, userEmail, authError } = await getGraphConfig();
    
        if (authError) {
          return {
            content: [{ type: "text", text: `🔐 Authentication Required\n\n${authError}\n\nPlease complete the authentication and try again.` }]
          };
        }
    
        // First get the event details to confirm what's being deleted
        const event = await graph.getEvent(eventId, userEmail);
        
        if (!event) {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: "Could not find the event to delete. Please check the event ID.",
              },
            ],
          };
        }
        
        // Delete the event
        const success = await graph.deleteEvent(eventId, userEmail);
        
        if (!success) {
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: "Failed to delete calendar event. Check the logs for details.",
              },
            ],
          };
        }
    
        // Format the result for response
        const successMessage = `Calendar event deleted successfully! Event ID: ${eventId}`;
    
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: successMessage,
            },
          ],
        };
      }
    );
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., on attendees), or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, direct sentence ('Delete a calendar event') with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of a destructive operation, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like error handling, return values, or behavioral nuances (e.g., confirmation prompts). For a tool that permanently removes data, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage by an agent.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'eventId' parameter clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, source of the ID, or validation rules). According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3, which applies here as the description doesn't compensate with extra param details.

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 'Delete a calendar event' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (calendar event), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create-event' or 'update-event' by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what distinguishes it from other destructive operations or provide additional context about the scope of deletion.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an event ID from 'get-event' or 'list-events'), when not to use it (e.g., for soft deletion), or how it compares to siblings like 'update-event' for modifying instead of deleting. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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

Related 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/anoopt/outlook-meetings-scheduler-mcp-server'

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