EARLY App MCP Server

Delete Time Entry

delete_time_entry

Destructive

Deletes a time entry from EARLY by its ID, allowing you to remove incorrect or unwanted tracked time records.

Instructions

Delete a time entry by ID

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": {
      "timeEntryId": "<timeEntryId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_time_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`timeEntryId`	Yes	The ID of the time entry to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.5Nov 6, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedv2.0.1Jun 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The destructiveHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a destructive operation, so the description's burden is reduced. However, it adds nothing beyond that: no statement about permanence, whether the entry can be recovered, or what happens if the ID does not exist. For a destructive tool this is a meaningful gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Its brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification for a destructive operation.

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 is simple, the parameter is fully described in the schema, and the destructive nature is captured by annotations, so the minimum an agent needs is present. What is missing is the practical context an agent needs before calling it: irreversibility and how to obtain a valid timeEntryId.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'timeEntryId' is fully documented in the schema as the ID of the time entry to delete. The description only restates 'by ID' and adds no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a time entry') plus the lookup key ('by ID'), so an agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not distinguish itself from the closely related edit_time_entry sibling, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of edit_time_entry, and no note that deletion is irreversible or that an ID must be obtained first (e.g., via get_time_entries). The agent must infer the entire usage context from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server