list_calendarList queue entries with date, status, title and term. Article bodies and briefs are not included; get_post returns one article and list_posts the full queue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workspaceId | No | The workspace this call acts on, as listed by list_workspaces. Left out, the call uses the workspace the account is in right now. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / workspaceIdAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The workspace this call acts on, as listed by list_workspaces. Left out, the call uses the workspace the account is in right now.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: exactly which fields come back and that 'article bodies and briefs are not included', which prevents an agent from expecting full content. Pagination behavior is not mentioned.
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 tight sentences, zero waste. The field list and exclusions are front-loaded, and the routing to alternatives follows immediately.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must cover return values, and it does by naming the fields and stating the two exclusions. Read-only annotations cover the safety dimension. It stops short of pagination limits and the relationship to calendar_view, so it is strong but not fully complete.
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?
Only one parameter (workspaceId) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the full semantic load, including the default-workspace behavior. The description adds nothing further about it. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('List queue entries') and enumerates the returned fields (date, status, title, term), which distinguishes it from the article-oriented siblings. However, it never addresses the sibling calendar_view, and the 'queue entries' phrasing sits oddly against the name/title 'calendar', leaving a small ambiguity about scope.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent: 'get_post returns one article and list_posts the full queue', giving a clear alternative and the condition that selects it. The distinction between this tool and list_posts is only implied (this appears to be the calendar-visible subset), and no guidance covers the calendar_view sibling.
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.