notion-calendar-mcp

delete_hold

Destructive

Removes a scheduled hold using its hold ID. Confirm before deletion since this action is permanent.

Instructions

Delete a Hold by holdId. POST /v2/deleteHold {holdId}. Destructive — confirm with the user first.

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": {
      "hold_id": "<hold_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_hold"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hold_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description strengthens that by explicitly warning 'Destructive — confirm with the user first.' It also reveals the exact HTTP endpoint, which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 very concise: one sentence stating the action, the endpoint, and the critical safety warning. Every part earns its place and no unnecessary detail is included.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple single-parameter delete operation, the description provides the essential information: what to delete, which ID to use, the endpoint, and the destructive nature requiring confirmation. It does not describe the response or potential errors, but that is less critical given the tool's simplicity and the safety annotations.

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 carries some burden for explaining hold_id. It mentions 'by holdId' and includes {holdId} in the endpoint, which clarifies that the parameter is the hold's identifier, but it adds no format, example, or additional constraints beyond what the parameter name and title already imply.

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 the operation ('Delete a Hold') and the resource identifier ('by holdId'), and the destructive warning makes it distinct from read-only or update siblings like get_hold and update_hold. The endpoint is also included for precision.

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 gives a clear usage warning ('Destructive — confirm with the user first'), which is helpful, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as update_hold or create_hold. The usage context is implied by the verb but not fully elaborated.

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