antideploy-mcp

Official

by antideploy

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

Remove a scheduled job

remove_schedule

Destructive

Remove an existing job schedule to change its timing or path, then add it again with the new settings.

Instructions

To change a job's schedule or path, remove it and add it again.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_schedule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The job's id from `list_schedules`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. What the description fails to add is any consequence detail: whether removal is permanent, whether past runs/history are lost, what happens if the id is unknown, or that the job stops firing immediately. For a destructive tool it should disclose more than 'remove it'.

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?

One sentence, zero padding, with the use case front-loaded. It is efficient but so short that it sacrifices a direct statement of what the tool actually does.

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?

For a destructive, irreversible-looking operation on a single id, the description omits outcome and failure semantics entirely, and there is no output schema to fill the gap. An agent knows when to call it but not what it will observe or what it risks destroying.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage that already points the agent to list_schedules for obtaining the id. The description adds nothing about the id's format or sourcing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description never directly states the core action ('permanently removes a scheduled job'); it only says 'remove it and add it again' as a workaround pattern, leaving the name and title to carry the verb+resource. It does link implicitly to the sibling add_schedule, but an agent must infer the primary effect from the tool name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear, specific trigger: use this when you want to change a job's schedule or path, because that cannot be done in place. It names the follow-up action (add it again) rather than an alternative sibling, but the when-to-use condition is explicit and actionable.

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