Skip to main content
Glama

Multi Calendar

by co.lumman
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Cancel an event

events_cancel
DestructiveIdempotent

Cancel an event the account organises; its provider sends a meeting's attendees the cancellation from that account's own address, as notify chooses, and Outlook sends message with it. Someone else's event is not cancelled here: declining it with events_respond takes it off an Outlook calendar and leaves it on a Google one, shown declined. copyOnly true takes only the account's own copy of someone else's event off its calendar - an Outlook copy its organiser has cancelled included - sending nothing, though Google then shows the account as declined and so needs inviting and replying allowed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopeNoFor an occurrence of a recurring series: occurrence, where omitted, acts on that occurrence alone, series on its whole series. A series named by its own seriesId is refused unless series is passed.
notifyNoWho the provider tells: every guest where omitted, externalOnly only guests outside Google Calendar, none nobody. Outlook tells every guest of a meeting it makes, changes or cancels, so there only an answer goes untold.
accountYesThe connected account, by the address calendars_list names.
eventIdYesThe event's id, as events_list names it.
messageNoWords sent to the guests with the cancellation; Outlook alone sends them.
copyOnlyNoTrue to take only the account's own copy of someone else's event off its calendar; the event stands for everyone else.
providerNoThe account's provider, as calendars_list names it; needed only where two connected accounts share an address.
calendarIdNoThe calendar holding the event, by the calendarId events_list names; a Google account's event outside its default calendar needs it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes beyond them by disclosing that the provider sends the cancellation from the account's own address, that Outlook alone sends the message, and that copyOnly sends nothing while leaving Google showing the account as declined. It stops short of stating irreversibility or auth requirements, but the side-effect disclosure is genuinely useful.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The verb+resource is front-loaded, and nearly every clause carries real information (no filler). However, it is compressed into a single sprawling paragraph with tangled clauses such as 'as notify chooses, and Outlook sends message with it', which makes it harder to parse than the content warrants.

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?

With eight parameters, open-world external effects, and no output schema, the description covers ownership, notification behavior, provider differences, and the copyOnly edge case including its Google-side aftermath. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only the absence of any pagination/return or error-behavior note keeps it from being fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all eight parameters are already documented in the schema, including the provider quirks for notify and message. The prose restates some of that (copyOnly, notify) rather than adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening clause 'Cancel an event the account organises' gives a specific verb and resource plus an ownership scope, and the description explicitly contrasts itself with events_respond for events the account does not own. The purpose is identifiable, though the delivery is buried in a dense run-on sentence rather than stated crisply.

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 names the alternative path explicitly ('Someone else's event is not cancelled here: declining it with events_respond') and explains the calendar-dependent consequences of that alternative. It also gives the condition for copyOnly (someone else's event, own copy only). It stops short of a clean when-not list, but the routing guidance is concrete.

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

All Multi Calendar toolsInspect
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