OmniFocus MCP Plus

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Remove item

remove_item

Destructive

Delete a task or project from OmniFocus by ID or exact name. Ensures precise removal by rejecting ambiguous or non-matching items.

Instructions

Remove a task or project from OmniFocus

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	The ID of the task or project to remove. If provided and it matches nothing, the removal fails — it does NOT fall back to the name.
`name`	No	The name of the task or project to remove (used only when no ID is given). Must match exactly one item; ambiguous names are rejected.
`itemType`	Yes	Type of item to remove ('task' or 'project')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`meta`	No
`tool`	Yes
`success`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. While destructiveHint=true already signals destruction, the description does not mention permanence, side effects (e.g., cascading deletion of sub-tasks), or any caution. It simply restates the action without elaborating on consequences.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no wasted wording, and it is immediately understandable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive tool, the description is too minimal. It lacks guidance on single-item scope (versus batch), does not warn about irreversibility or cascading effects, and does not mention what happens to dependent items. While the output schema and annotations cover some aspects, the description itself is incomplete for safe and correct usage.

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 schema itself provides detailed descriptions for id and name, including the fallback behavior. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so a 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 clearly states the action ('Remove') and the resource ('a task or project from OmniFocus'), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like batch_remove_items or delete_folder. The verb and object are unambiguous.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention batch_remove_items for multiple removals or clarify that this is for single items. There is no 'when not to use' or explicit differentiation from similar removal tools.

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

Deploy Server