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?
Describes core actions (write to calendar, email, return URL) but lacks details on side effects, error handling, or rate limits. Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, so description adds some value but not comprehensive.
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?
Single sentence conveying all essential actions and output. No wasted 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?
Covers main functionality and output, but could include guidance on when to use versus siblings and return format details. Still adequate for a mutation tool with moderate 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 coverage is 67%, and description does not add parameter-specific info beyond the schema. For undocumented parameters like 'title', no additional clarity is provided.
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?
Clearly states it confirms a meeting by writing to calendar, adding conference link, emailing invites, and returning share URL. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_common_slots or suggest_time.
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?
Indicates it is for confirming a meeting and requires authentication. Lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, but context is clear.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct operation—creation, slot finding, manual availability management, meeting details, and suggestion handling. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_meeting, find_common_slots, set_manual_availability), making them predictable and easy to differentiate.
With 8 tools, the server covers essential scheduling functionalities (create, find slots, manage availability, handle suggestions) without unnecessary bloat. This count is well-suited for the domain.
Core workflows are well-covered: finding slots, creating meetings, suggesting/responding to alternate times. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct meeting update or cancellation, but these are not critical for typical agent usage.