google-workspace-alias-mcp

delete_event

Delete a calendar event from your primary or specified calendar using its event ID.

Instructions

Delete a calendar event

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": {
      "eventId": "<eventId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`eventId`	Yes	Event ID to delete
`calendarId`	No	Calendar ID	primary

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Delete' implies irreversibility, but no details on permissions, cascading effects, or success confirmation are given.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words, though it could be slightly expanded for completeness.

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?

For a simple delete operation with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on effects (e.g., permanent deletion) or usage notes.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning.

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 calendar event' clearly identifies the action and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_email, delete_label), but the tool name and resource type make it unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_event to soft-delete, or batch operations). No prerequisites or context provided.

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