Bullet MCP

delete_entry

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a task, note, or event by its ID. This action is idempotent, ensuring success even if the entry was already removed.

Instructions

Soft-delete an entry. Idempotent — succeeds even if already deleted.

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": "delete_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Entry ID (UUID) to delete. Succeeds even if already deleted.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`deleted`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.1Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by clarifying 'soft-delete' (non-permanent) and explaining idempotent behavior ('succeeds even if already deleted'), which is practical context. It does not mention auth or side effects, but for a simple soft-delete with annotations present, this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action. The second sentence adds essential behavioral context without waste, making it appropriately concise.

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?

For a one-parameter soft-delete tool with strong annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint) and a fully documented schema plus output schema, the description covers the key operational aspects. There are no gaps in necessary context.

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 schema already fully documents the only parameter ('Entry ID (UUID) to delete. Succeeds even if already deleted.'). The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond reinforcing idempotency, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Soft-delete an entry' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like update_entry and get_entry. The 'soft' nuance adds specificity.

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 implies usage for deleting entries but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools such as permanent deletion or update_entry. It provides no when-not guidance, though the idempotency note gives some operational context.

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

Deploy Server