Kalender Sync

Preview a calendar sync

preview_sync

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks whether a sync between two of the user's calendars could be created — one-way (source into target) or two-way (both directions) — without creating anything. It reports both calendars, whether it could be created, and every blocker it found — all of them, not just the first. max_detail_level is the most this access may copy from the source; pass detail_level to check a specific one. It deliberately does not state how many events would be copied: that is not computed, so it is not claimed. A sync copies continuously, not once.

The source must be a calendar shared with this access and the target one the user released for syncs (list_calendars: sync_target). For two-way, BOTH calendars must be shared and released, and max_reverse_detail_level is the most that may flow back. A positive preview is not a reservation: the same checks run again when create_sync writes, and conditions can change in between. Costs no credits.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`direction`	No	Default one_way
`detail_level`	No	Optional: check this detail level against max_detail_level
`event_colors`	No	Optional: check whether keeping event colors is available
`source_calendar_id`	Yes	Calendar whose events are copied (from list_calendars)
`target_calendar_id`	Yes	Calendar the copies are written into (sync_target in list_calendars)
`reverse_detail_level`	No	Two-way only: detail level from target back into source; defaults to detail_level

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`effect`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`target`	Yes
`blockers`	Yes
`direction`	Yes
`can_create`	Yes
`max_detail_level`	Yes
`max_reverse_detail_level`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 24, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / event_colors

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: check whether keeping event colors is available",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

AddedOct 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already carry the full safety profile, so the description is graded mainly on added context. It does add real behaviour an agent could not infer: it costs no credits, it does not compute or claim an event count, a sync copies continuously rather than once, and a positive preview is not a reservation. Those are useful disclosures, though they are framed as caveats rather than a systematic account of what the response contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core capability and the 'without creating anything' constraint are front-loaded in the first sentence. The precondition and caveat material in the second paragraph is dense but each sentence carries distinct information; the only slight cost is length for a straightforward preview tool.

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?

For a 6-parameter read-only tool with a full output schema, the description supplies what the schema cannot: the sharing/release preconditions, the non-reservation caveat, cost, and why no event count is returned. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both enums are documented in-schema, so the baseline applies. The description adds interpretation for detail_level versus max_detail_level and reverse_detail_level defaulting to detail_level, but it does not cover direction, event_colors, or the two required IDs beyond restating them.

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?

States a precise verb and resource ('Checks whether a sync between two of the user's calendars could be created ... without creating anything') and explicitly separates itself from create_sync and from preview_delete_sync by scope. The one-way/two-way framing makes the capability immediately legible.

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?

Gives the preconditions for use in concrete terms: source must be a calendar shared with this access, target must be one released for syncs (pointing at list_calendars: sync_target), and two-way requires BOTH shared and released. It also tells the agent when a positive result is not sufficient, by pointing to create_sync re-running the checks.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?