Confirm a meeting: writes the event into the authenticated host’s calendar with an optional Google Meet/Teams link, emails invites with an ICS attachment, and returns the share URL (/m/). Requires authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tz | No | IANA zone used to format times in invite emails. | |
| title | No | ||
| endsAt | Yes | unix ms | |
| startsAt | Yes | unix ms | |
| conference | No | Omit for no conference link. | |
| participants | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description details the write action (calendar, email, share URL) and requires authentication. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so no contradiction. Adds context beyond annotations, though idempotency or failure modes aren't covered.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the main action and efficiently conveys all key details with no unnecessary words.
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?
The description explains the outcome (share URL, email invites) and authentication. Although it lacks error handling or edge cases, it provides sufficient context for typical usage given the schema covers parameters.
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 67%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description does not add extra meaning to parameters beyond the schema. No improvement or harm.
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 clearly states the tool confirms a meeting by writing to the host's calendar, optionally adding a Google Meet/Teams link, emailing invites with ICS attachment, and returning a share URL. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like suggest_time or find_common_slots.
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 context (after planning) and states authentication requirement, but does not explicitly specify when to use or avoid this tool compared to siblings. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.