List all booking calendars owned by the user. Returns an array of calendars with their settings including remindersEnabled, duration, buffers, etc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying the return shape (array of calendars with settings like remindersEnabled, duration, buffers). This goes beyond annotations with useful behavioral context.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then return details. No wasted words or redundancy.
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?
Given zero parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, the ownership scope, and the return contents. It is complete for its complexity.
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?
No parameters exist, so the schema is trivially covered. The description doesn't need to add parameter detail, and the baseline for 0 params is 4.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' with resource 'booking calendars' and scope 'owned by the user'. This distinguishes it from singular get_calendar and other calendar sub-resource tools.
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?
It clearly implies use when you want all calendars owned by the user, and the plural 'all' distinguishes from singular retrieval. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions for specific sub-resources like availability or reminders.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly distinct, but update_calendar overlaps with specialized tools like update_booking_settings, update_confirmation_settings, and the reminder management tools (add/delete/get reminders). This creates ambiguity about which tool to use for modifying specific settings such as buffers or reminders, though descriptions help clarify the intended scope.
All 28 tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_calendar, get_appointments, update_contact). The verbs are predictable (add, cancel, create, delete, get, reschedule, send, update), making the API easy to navigate.
With 28 tools, the set exceeds the 25+ threshold typically considered too many. While each tool serves a legitimate purpose, the high number is overwhelming and likely includes more granularity than necessary; some settings tools could be consolidated.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of calendars, appointments, and contacts, including availability, overrides, reminders, confirmation settings, and notifications. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations; cancellation and rescheduling handle appointment changes, and send_invitation covers creation.
