Accept or decline a proposed alternate time. Accepting moves the meeting (calendar event included) and re-sends invites. Only the meeting host may call this — requires authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| meetingId | Yes | ||
| suggestionId | 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?
Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses that accepting moves the meeting and re-sends invites. It also states authentication requirement, adding behavioral context.
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 sentences, no redundant information. Front-loaded with the core action and quickly adds critical behavioral details.
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 the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the main purpose and constraints. Minor gaps like what happens on decline are implied but acceptable.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining the action parameter's effect. However, meetingId and suggestionId are not defined beyond their names, leaving some ambiguity.
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 accepts or declines a proposed alternate time and explains the effect of accepting. It distinguishes itself from siblings like suggest_time by focusing on the response step.
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?
Description explicitly notes only the meeting host may call and requires authentication, providing clear usage constraints. It does not compare to alternatives but the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.