Shortcut MCP Server

Delete Shortcut Label

delete_label

Permanently remove a label from Shortcut. Requires explicit confirmation to execute, ensuring irreversible deletion is deliberate.

Instructions

Permanently delete a Shortcut label. IRREVERSIBLE. Requires confirm_delete=true and confirm='CONFIRM_WRITE'.

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": {
      "label_id": "<label_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`confirm`	No	Must be CONFIRM_WRITE to execute
`dry_run`	No
`label_id`	Yes
`confirm_delete`	No	Must be true to confirm permanent deletion

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description explicitly warns 'IRREVERSIBLE' and 'Permanently delete', which clearly discloses the destructive behavior. It also specifies mandatory confirmation parameters, which is valuable context beyond what annotations would provide (though annotations are absent). It does not mention side effects on stories using the label, but the core destructive trait is well covered.

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 three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, warning, and requirements. It is tightly written, with the critical 'IRREVERSIBLE' warning front-loaded in caps. No unnecessary words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple delete operation, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, irreversibility, and required confirmations. The only missing element is an explanation of dry_run, but the tool's overall simplicity and the presence of a confirmation mechanism make this a minor omission. No output schema means return value expectations are not needed.

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?

The description directly specifies the required values for confirm_delete and confirm, aligning with the schema's parameter descriptions. However, it does not explain the dry_run parameter at all, leaving a gap. With schema description coverage at 50%, the description partially compensates for the undefined parameters but not fully.

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 states a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('Shortcut label') with a clear qualifier ('Permanently'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the exact resource type. The first sentence alone fully captures the tool's purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context: use this to permanently delete a Shortcut label. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the resource is specific enough that the intended use is obvious. There is no comparison to create_label or update_label, but the destructive nature is highlighted.

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

Deploy Server