haus

create_calendar_event

Creates a single, one-off calendar event on the household calendar. For a repeating schedule use create_recurring_calendar_event instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notes`	No	Freeform notes attached to the event. Up to 5000 characters.
`title`	Yes	Event title/summary shown in calendar views. Required, up to 200 characters.
`isAllDay`	Yes	True for an all-day event with no specific start/end time; false for a timed event.
`location`	No	Location. Set $type to 'Address' for physical (with line1-3, postalCode, countryCode) or 'OnlineLocation' for virtual (with url, notes).
`timezone`	No	IANA timezone id (e.g. 'Europe/London') describing the wall-clock zone of startDateTime/endDateTime; null = UTC.
`description`	No	Longer free-text description of the event. Up to 2000 characters.
`endDateTime`	No	ISO 8601 date-time in UTC (Z-suffix). Must not be before startDateTime.
`startDateTime`	Yes	ISO 8601 date-time in UTC (Z-suffix). The wall clock is interpreted against the supplied timezone if any.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes
`title`	No
`message`	No
`variant`	No

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds a key behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the event is 'single, one-off' and belongs to the 'household calendar.' The annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), so the description enriches rather than repeats that context.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and target, and the second provides a direct pointer to the alternative tool.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the rich schema (100% param coverage) and output schema, the description only needs to convey the intent and scope, which it does. It clearly differentiates from the recurring variant and names the household calendar as the destination.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for all 8 parameters, including formats, constraints, and examples. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('calendar event'), and specifies 'single, one-off' to distinguish from recurring events. It explicitly references the sibling tool create_recurring_calendar_event, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly directs users to create_recurring_calendar_event for repeating schedules, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It implies use this tool for one-off events, which is sufficient differentiation from the only closely related sibling.

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

All haus tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear descriptions separating similar-sounding tools like create_calendar_event vs create_recurring_calendar_event. Shopping list operations (add, buy, remove, update) are clearly delineated.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*, get_*, etc. Even special operations like store_memory, recall_memory, and skip_recommendation fit the pattern.

Tool Count1/5

With 68 tools, this server vastly exceeds a reasonable scope; the instruction manual indicates 50+ tools is an extreme mismatch. The breadth suggests the server should be split into focused sub-servers (tasks, shopping, calendar, etc.) rather than a single monolithic interface.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers full CRUD/lifecycle for all major resources: tasks, shopping, calendar, contacts, documents, appliances, vehicles, pets, recipes, meal plans, subscriptions, and memories. Additional features like house review, weather, and profile round out the household management domain.

Resources

Need Help?