ActiveCampaign MCP

remove_event_name_only

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete an event tracking event by its name. This action permanently removes the event record from ActiveCampaign.

Instructions

🔴 DESTRUCTIVE · deletes data · Event Tracking Events · DELETE /eventTrackingEvents/{eventName}

Delete event (name only)

Deletes a record. Confirm with the user before calling.

Remove an existing event tracking event (name only)

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": {
      "eventName": "<eventName>"
    },
    "name": "remove_event_name_only"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`eventName`	Yes	Name of event to delete. Spaces in names are allowed, but must be encoded (for example, "my%20event").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Jul 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. Description adds important context: 'Deletes a record. Confirm with the user before calling.' and a red icon emphasizing destructiveness. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Description is short but slightly redundant (repeats 'Delete event (name only)' and 'Remove an existing event tracking event (name only)'). Includes useful warning structure but could be more concise.

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?

Covers essentials: destructive, confirm, event name. However, lacks information about success response, preconditions (e.g., event must exist), or idempotency implications, which would be helpful given no output schema.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'eventName' described in schema. Description only mentions 'name only', adding no additional semantics beyond what schema provides. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states 'Delete event (name only)' and 'Remove an existing event tracking event (name only)'. It specifies the action (delete/remove) and the resource, distinguishing it from many other delete tools for different entities (e.g., delete_a_deal, delete_contact).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Description warns 'Confirm with the user before calling' and highlights destructiveness, but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide clear usage context beyond deletion.

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

Deploy Server