Telegram Calendar MCP

Fetch one owned event by id

get_event

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get one event owned by the authenticated user by id. A missing id and an id owned by someone else both return not found. Dates use the user timezone.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Event id owned by the authenticated user; any other id returns not found

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Event id
`end`	No	End in the user timezone (ISO 8601)
`desc`	No	Description
`type`	No	event is a timed item; task is a to-do without a duration
`links`	No	External calendar links when sync has finished
`rrule`	No	iCalendar RRULE string when the event repeats
`start`	No	Start in the user timezone (ISO 8601)
`title`	Yes	Event or task title
`allDay`	No	True when the event is a calendar date without a time
`status`	No	Event status: active, done, undone, or cancelled
`location`	No	Short place name
`timezone`	No	IANA timezone stored on the event
`createdAt`	No	When the event was created (ISO 8601)
`updatedAt`	No	When the event was last changed (ISO 8601)
`calendarId`	No	Calendar that owns the event

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true associative, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context: it discloses that a missing id and an id owned by someone else both return not found, preventing the agent from expecting an error or different behavior for 'not found' cases. It also notes that dates use the user timezone, which is useful but not critical.

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?

Three sentences, each with a clear purpose: identifies the action and ownership, clarifies error behavior, and notes date handling. No wasted words; the key constraint (ownership) is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read tool with a full output schema and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It does not explain the return format, but the output schema exists, so that is covered. It also does not describe pagination or errors in detail, but for a single-event fetch that is not necessary. The ownership scoping is well-covered.

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%: the schema already describes the id parameter and its semantics (owned by the user, any other id returns not found). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one event owned by the authenticated user by id'), immediately distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_events' or 'list_calendars' by emphasizing ownership and single-id lookup. It also clarifies the core scope: only events owned by the user are accessible.

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?

It provides clear context: this tool fetches exactly one event by id, and implies it is not for listing or searching (which have dedicated siblings). However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use it (e.g., for lists or searches) or mention alternatives, though the sibling list and tool naming make the distinction obvious.

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

All Telegram Calendar MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?