savvycal_get_link_slotsGet available booking time slots for a scheduling link. Returns slots with start_at/end_at/duration/rank. SavvyCal REST: GET /links/{id}/slots.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The scheduling link id. | |
| duration | No | Slot duration in minutes to request (→ query param duration). | |
| time_zone | No | IANA time zone for the slots, e.g. America/New_York (→ query param time_zone). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the returned slot fields (start_at/end_at/duration/rank) and mapping the call to GET /links/{id}/slots. It stops short of noting auth requirements or slot-count/pagination limits.
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 tightly packed sentences: purpose first, then return shape and endpoint. No filler, nothing redundant, front-loaded.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so by naming the slot fields. For a simple read-only retrieval with a fully documented schema this is nearly complete; only rate/availability caveats are missing.
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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented including their query-param mapping. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 and resource ('Get available booking time slots for a scheduling link'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling list_links/get_link (link metadata) and list_events (booked events). An agent can tell this is the availability query without opening the schema.
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 names no alternatives and gives no conditions for choosing this over savvycal_get_link or savvycal_list_events. Usage is only implied by the resource name; an agent must infer that 'available slots' means availability lookup for scheduling.
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.