get_calendar_feed_urlThe three subscribable ICS calendar feed URL templates for one promotion — per event, per card section, or per bout at its estimated start — with a placeholder where the key goes. Returns URL templates only, never the caller's credential; the human pastes the finished URL into their calendar app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| org | Yes | Promotion slug. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns URL templates only, never the caller's credential, and requires a human to paste the finished URL into a calendar app. This supplements the annotation profile without contradicting it.
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 dense sentences with no wasted words. The core output and the API-key placeholder behavior are front-loaded, and the credential-safety note earns its place.
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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description fully explains what is returned and the crucial detail that credentials are not exposed. The annotations cover safety, and the description covers output semantics, so nothing essential is missing despite the lack of an output schema.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'org' parameter is fully documented with an enum. The description adds only the context that the URLs are for one promotion and that the API key placeholder appears in the templates, providing minimal new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.
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 ('get'), resource ('ICS calendar feed URL templates'), and scope ('for one promotion'), and enumerates the three granularities (per event, per card section, per bout). This clearly distinguishes it from other get_* tools even without reading their schemas.
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 implies usage by identifying the resource and promotion scope, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over a sibling like get_bulk_snapshot_url, nor does it offer exclusions. Usage guidance is present but only implicit.
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.