@mnicole-dev/calcom-mcp-server

delete-schedule

Delete an availability schedule by its ID, removing it from your Cal.com account. Use this to clean up outdated or duplicate schedules.

Instructions

Delete an availability schedule 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": {
      "scheduleId": "<scheduleId>"
    },
    "name": "delete-schedule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scheduleId`	Yes	The schedule ID to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that deletion is permanent or irreversible, whether related bookings or schedules are affected, what permissions are required, or what the response will be. 'Delete' merely restates the action rather than disclosing its behavioral implications.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant words. Every word earns its place, and the length is appropriate for a one-parameter 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is minimally workable: an agent knows what to delete and with what ID. However, because there are no annotations and no output schema, the description should have disclosed deletion consequences and usage boundaries to be genuinely complete. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema provides 100% coverage with 'The schedule ID to delete.' The description's 'by ID' reinforces the schema but adds no new semantic detail such as accepted formats, edge cases, or how the ID is used beyond identifying the target.

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'), names the resource precisely ('availability schedule'), and identifies the key input ('by ID'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like update-schedule and delete-event-type, making the purpose immediately obvious.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or exclusions such as 'use this only for availability schedules, not event types.' The intended usage is implied by the name and verb but not explicitly stated.

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