Remove a specific time entry from Clockodo for the authenticated user by providing the entry ID. Useful for correcting mistakes or updating your time log.
Delete a time entry for the authenticated user.
Args: entry_id: ID of the entry to delete
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entry_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, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent's safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'authenticated user' scoping constraint and nothing about permanence, re-auth, or deletion side effects, so its added value is modest.
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 short lines with the verb and scope front-loaded, followed by a compact Args block. Nothing is wasted, though the Args restatement is thin enough to be near-redundant.
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 one-parameter mutation tool whose annotations cover destructiveness and idempotency, the description plus schema are sufficient to call it correctly. Missing details about reversibility are largely covered by destructiveHint.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry entry_id's meaning; it does say entry_id is the ID of the entry to delete, which is minimal but real compensation. It adds no format, ownership, or lookup guidance for the ID.
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 and resource ('Delete a time entry') and scopes it to the authenticated user, which reasonably separates it from the vacation/absence siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool, so it stops short of the top score.
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?
No statement of when to use this versus edit_my_time_entry, delete_my_vacation, or other time-entry operations, and no preconditions beyond the implicit 'you must own the entry'. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.