list_location_optionsList the meeting locations an event type can use for this user or one of their teams.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_location_options"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| teamId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful scoping context by clarifying that results are tied to an event type and either the user or one of their teams, but it does not describe auth requirements, return behavior, or what happens when no team is selected.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted language. It is appropriately sized, though it could have used a few more words to clarify the optional teamId behavior.
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?
For a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and scope. However, it leaves a meaningful gap around the teamId parameter and does not state what the returned location options represent.
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?
The schema has one optional teamId parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It vaguely gestures at 'this user or one of their teams' but never names teamId or explains what happens when teamId is omitted versus provided.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the meeting locations an event type can use.' It adds scope by saying 'for this user or one of their teams,' which helps distinguish it from unrelated list tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.
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?
The description explains what the tool does, but not when to use it versus alternatives such as list_conferencing_apps or location-related mutation tools. There is no explicit usage context, exclusion, or routing guidance.
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.