save_ics_feedConnect one or more ICS calendar feed URLs as busy-time sources.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"urls": "<urls>"
},
"name": "save_ics_feed"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| urls | Yes | ||
| readOnly | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the feeds serve as busy-time sources, but says nothing about remote fetching, duplicate URL handling, or failure behavior for unreachable feeds.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the action and effect front-loaded. Brevity is appropriate, though it leaves no room for the missing behavioral detail.
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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the basic effect but leaves the second parameter's meaning and the post-connect outcome unaddressed.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, yet it never explains the 'readOnly' parameter and only hints that urls is a collection via 'one or more'. It adds little over the schema's array/uri typing.
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 (connect) and resource (ICS calendar feed URLs) plus the effect (as busy-time sources). An agent can distinguish it from check_ics_feed, though it is not explicitly contrasted with connect_calendar_with_credentials.
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?
No statement of when to prefer this over check_ics_feed or the credential-based calendar connection tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The 'busy-time sources' phrasing is the only implied usage cue.
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.