Deletes a blockout from your Planning Center serving schedule. For repeating blockouts, it removes the whole series; use skip_blockout_date to skip one date.
Delete one of your blockouts. For a repeating blockout this deletes the WHOLE series; use skip_blockout_date to drop a single date instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| blockout_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the critical scope-of-destruction detail that a repeating blockout deletes the WHOLE series, which is not recoverable from the annotations alone. It stops short of stating ownership/permission requirements or failure behavior, so not a 5.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste, with the destructive scope stated first and the alternative routing second. Nothing to trim.
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 single-param destructive tool with no output schema, annotations plus the series-deletion warning cover what an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around ownership/permissions and behavior on an invalid or already-deleted ID.
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?
Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 0%; the description adds no syntax or provenance for blockout_id (e.g., that it comes from list_blockouts). The lone ID is self-describing in name, so this is minimally adequate rather than broken.
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?
States a specific verb (delete) and resource (one of your blockouts), and explicitly distinguishes the whole-series case from the single-date case handled by skip_blockout_date. An agent can pick this tool without opening any schema.
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?
Gives an explicit routing rule: for a repeating blockout use skip_blockout_date to drop a single date instead. The alternative and the condition that selects it are both named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.