Remove a task's scheduled automation by providing its unique task ID, disabling and deleting the schedule configuration to stop future runs.
Disable and remove the schedule configuration from a specific task.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| taskId | Yes | The unique ID of the task whose schedule to delete. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which cover the destructive and repeatable nature. The description adds the phrase 'disable and remove' which is consistent but does not provide additional behavioral context beyond what annotations offer. No contradiction exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly written sentence that conveys the action and scope immediately. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff or redundant wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple deletion tool with one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate. It could mention that only the schedule is affected (not the task itself), but that is implied by 'schedule configuration'. Overall, nothing critical is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes taskId fully, and the description does not add any extra semantic detail about the parameter. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3; the description does not improve on it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (disable and remove) and the resource (schedule configuration from a specific task). It distinguishes from siblings like schedule_set (which likely sets a schedule) and schedule_list (which lists schedules). However, it does not explicitly mention the distinction from schedule_delete or other schedule-related tools, but the purpose is clear enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. It does not state conditions for use, prerequisites, or when to avoid it. An agent must infer that this tool is for deletion, but there is no explicit routing to or away from siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.