@mnicole-dev/calcom-mcp-server

delete-event-type

Delete an event type from Cal.com by providing its event type ID. This removes the specified booking type from your account.

Instructions

Delete an event type 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": {
      "eventTypeId": "<eventTypeId>"
    },
    "name": "delete-event-type"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`eventTypeId`	Yes	The event type ID to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. While 'Delete' signals a destructive mutation, the description does not state whether the deletion is permanent, whether there are cascading effects, or whether any permissions are required. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable 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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the operation and includes the essential identifier detail. There is no wasted wording or redundant information.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, so the description is largely sufficient for correct invocation. It would benefit from a brief note about irreversibility or side effects, but the core usage context is complete.

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 parameter description already explains that eventTypeId is 'The event type ID to delete'. The tool description adds no substantial meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') with a clear resource ('event type') and explicitly identifies the identifier method ('by ID'). This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as create-event-type, update-event-type, get-event-type, and list-event-types.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly indicates this tool is for deleting an event type, and the 'by ID' phrasing makes the intended use unambiguous. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling operations are semantically different enough that confusion is unlikely.

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