Kalender Sync

Get availability

get_availability

Read-only

Returns the user's busy times in a given range, across all calendars shared with this access.

How the answer is produced: every shared calendar is read directly at the provider and the results are merged. There is no detour through a copy. as_of per calendar says when it was read — reads are reused for up to 60 seconds, so an event created moments ago may briefly be missing.

What busy contains: every event that blocks time — including all-day events and ones marked "tentative". NOT included are cancelled events and events explicitly marked "free" in the calendar. An empty busy therefore means "nothing blocks this time", not "no events exist".

Completeness: the answer covers exactly the calendars the user shared — not necessarily all calendars they own. If one of them could not be read, it appears with read: false in sources and additionally in warnings. These limitations belong in your answer to the user.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	Yes	End of the range, ISO 8601
`from`	Yes	Start of the range, ISO 8601 (e.g. 2026-07-21T00:00:00Z)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`busy`	Yes
`range`	Yes
`sources`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`range_clamped`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing the direct-read mechanism, 60-second cache reuse and its freshness implications, inclusion of all-day/tentative events, exclusion of cancelled/free events, and the meaning of empty busy. It also explains how failed calendar reads surface in sources and warnings.

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 organized into labeled sections, each adding non-redundant value: result semantics, freshness behavior, busy definition, and completeness caveats. Despite being longer than average, nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema covers return structure, so the description need not restate it. The description covers the behavioral caveats an agent must know to answer users correctly, including incomplete calendar reads and event freshness. No significant missing context.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, including an ISO 8601 example. The description only adds 'given range' and doesn't add semantics like inclusivity or timezone handling, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: returns the user's busy times across all shared calendars in a given range. It clearly differentiates from siblings like list_calendars and search_events by focusing on busy/blocked time rather than calendar metadata or event lookup.

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?

The description makes the scope explicit (shared calendars only, not necessarily all owned) and even tells the agent to relay limitations to the user. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over a sibling tool, but the domain is distinct enough that the context is clear.

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

All Kalender Sync tools Inspect

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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action or resource: create/update/delete events, availability lookup, calendar listing, text search, and feedback. Even closely related read tools like get_availability and search_events are clearly separated by their purpose and output.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_event, delete_event, get_availability, list_calendars, search_events, send_feedback, update_event. There are no mixed conventions or vague generic verbs.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well-scoped for a calendar integration server, covering the core calendar operations plus a feedback channel. Each tool has a clear purpose and none feel redundant or unnecessary.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the main calendar lifecycle: create, update, delete, availability, listing, and search. Minor gaps exist such as no direct get_event-by-id operation and no invite/RSVP handling, but these are acknowledged limitations rather than severe dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?