Skip to main content
Glama

concordance

by com.narrowhighway

calendar_create

Create ONE event in a human's calendar — the pilot on-behalf write, and the only one. Requires a LIVE consent grant: the human signed a scoped, expiring calendar_write grant for YOUR key fingerprint on their own device (GET /consent/signable → sign locally → POST /consent). Without it this refuses and teaches the way in. The event lands only in the calendar THEY configured (their .ics file or CalDAV); nothing is stored here, and the receipt names the grant that authorized it. Deleting the event in their calendar removes it everywhere.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
end_isoNo
summaryYes
agent_fpYes
start_isoYes
descriptionNo
grantor_pubkeyYes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses authorization requirements (LIVE consent grant), failure behavior (refuses), data placement (only in user's configured calendar), storage policy ('nothing is stored here'), receipt behavior, and deletion semantics ('removes it everywhere'). Since no annotations are provided, the description fully carries the burden and does so comprehensively.

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 a single paragraph of four sentences, each providing distinct value: purpose, consent requirement, behavior with storage/receipt, and deletion semantics. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant information.

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?

The description covers purpose, prerequisites, failure behavior, storage, receipt, and deletion. However, it lacks an explicit return value description (only mentions a receipt) and does not elaborate on parameter meanings or formats, which is a gap given the absence of output schema and annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain parameter details beyond an implicit reference to agent_fp as 'YOUR key fingerprint'. It does not define start_iso/end_iso formats, the meaning of grantor_pubkey, or the optionality of fields. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Create ONE event in a human's calendar' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing itself as 'the pilot on-behalf write, and the only one', implying there is no alternative calendar creation tool.

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 states the prerequisite of a LIVE consent grant and says 'Without it this refuses and teaches the way in', providing a clear condition for use. It also specifies that the event lands only in the calendar the human configured, giving context for when the tool should be used. No alternatives are named, but the tool claims to be the only one for this action.

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

All concordance toolsInspect
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

C2.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are near-duplicates: read_passage and resolve both fetch WEB text for a reference; word_study already includes every occurrence that word_occurrences returns; coach_next and coach_recommend both answer 'what's next.' Search/locate/cards_browse also overlap as discovery entry points, making tool selection ambiguous despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names follow an object_verb snake_case pattern (cards_browse, study_create, seal_fetch), but there are many bare verbs/nouns (ask, audit, resolve, verify, canon, harmony) and inconsistent singular/plural pairs (card_get vs cards_browse, group_create vs groups_list, want_open vs wants_list). No camelCase, but the convention is not uniform.

Tool Count1/5

86 tools is an extreme count for any single MCP server, far beyond the 3-15 well-scoped range; even a broad platform would be hard for an agent to navigate. Many tools belong to unrelated subdomains (coach, steward, mesh, calendar), making the surface unwieldy.

Completeness2/5

The want/offer flow has no accept/close tool, so an agent can open a want and offer a source but never see it resolved. Group and calendar coverage are one-directional (create/join only; no leave/delete/list/update), and there is no badge listing or way to update a study group. Core reading/verification/shelf flows are solid, but lifecycle gaps remain.

Resources