GET /calendar/events
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Optional query overrides for endpoints with sparse parameter schemas. | |
| cursor | No | ||
| brand_id | No | ||
| workspace_id | No | Workspace to operate in. Do not ask the user for this UUID — call aidelly_list_workspaces and use the `id` of the matching workspace. Optional for read operations; required when creating content. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / cursorAdded value: +{
+ "maxLength": 512,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / workspace_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Workspace to operate in. Do not ask the user for this UUID — call aidelly_list_workspaces and use the `id` of the matching workspace. Optional for read operations; required when creating content."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context such as date-range constraints, event types, pagination behavior, or response details. It does not contradict annotations but contributes no extra transparency.
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 extremely brief (one line), which is concise but at the expense of substance. It is not a structured explanation; it is just an endpoint string with no meaningful content.
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?
Given 4 parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and the need for filtering and pagination context, the description is completely inadequate. There is no mention of what data is returned, how events are organized, or how to use the cursor. This is far below the minimum viable for the tool's complexity.
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 50% (query and workspace_id have descriptions; cursor and brand_id do not). The tool description itself explains none of the parameters and does not compensate for the undocumented ones. The vague query param description ('query overrides for endpoints with sparse parameter schemas') adds little clarity.
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 'GET /calendar/events' simply restates the tool name as an HTTP endpoint. It does not explicitly state that it retrieves calendar events or what those events are. This is essentially a tautology, providing little more than the name itself.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like list_scheduled_posts or get_scheduled_post. The description mentions no prerequisites, filtering scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
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.