Chronos MCP

delete_journal

Remove a journal entry from your calendar by providing its unique identifier.

Instructions

Delete a journal entry

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": {
      "calendar_uid": "<calendar_uid>",
      "journal_uid": "<journal_uid>"
    },
    "name": "delete_journal"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`account`	No	Account alias
`request_id`	No
`journal_uid`	Yes	Journal UID to delete
`calendar_uid`	Yes	Calendar UID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'Delete a journal entry' without disclosing behavioral traits such as permanence, permission requirements, side effects, or whether the operation is reversible. For a destructive action, this is a significant gap.

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 concise sentence with no redundant or irrelevant information. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has an output schema but the description does not explain what it returns (e.g., success status, deleted object). Additionally, there is no mention of idempotency or error handling. For a simple delete, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 covers 75% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself is fairly clear on required parameters (calendar_uid, journal_uid) and optional ones (account, request_id).

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 journal entry' clearly identifies the verb (delete) and resource (journal entry), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'bulk_delete_journals', which is a closely related alternative.

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 like 'bulk_delete_journals', nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions for use. 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.