cronometer-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

delete_repeat_item

Remove unwanted recurring food entries from Cronometer nutrition logs. Provide the repeat_item_id found with get_repeated_items to delete the scheduled item.

Instructions

Delete a recurring food entry.

Use get_repeated_items to find the repeat_item_id.

Args: repeat_item_id: The ID of the repeat item to delete.

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": {
      "repeat_item_id": "<repeat_item_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_repeat_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repeat_item_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.3Mar 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes a destructively mutable operation but fails to mention side effects, irreversibility, permissions needed, or return values. The only added context is a hint to find the ID.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a parameter line. It front-loads the primary action and immediately follows with a crucial usage hint. No extraneous information.

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?

For a simple delete tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the action and parameter purpose but omits expected behavior on success/failure, error handling, or any confirmation. An agent might need additional context for robust invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds a minimal explanation for the single parameter: 'The ID of the repeat item to delete.' This provides some clarity beyond the schema property name, but lacks details like validation constraints or example values.

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 'Delete a recurring food entry', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from related tools like remove_food_entry (for regular entries) and the sibling add_repeat_item and get_repeated_items.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description tells users to use get_repeated_items to find the repeat_item_id, which provides a prerequisite step, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., remove_food_entry) or when not to use it. The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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