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?
Discloses that accepting moves the meeting, includes calendar event, re-sends invites, and requires host authentication. Adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation (which is false, consistent).
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 wasted words. Front-loads the core action and provides essential behavioral detail efficiently.
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?
Fairly complete for a mutation tool with 3 params and no output schema. Covers purpose, behavior, and auth. Could mention what happens on decline (likely no action), but not essential.
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 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description does not detail the parameters (meetingId, suggestionId, action) or their formats. Only implies usage through context.
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 the verb 'accept or decline' and the resource 'proposed alternate time'. Distinguishes from siblings like suggest_time (which proposes) and create_meeting (which creates).
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?
Provides clear context: when there is a proposed alternate time, and who can call (only host, requires auth). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or 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.
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.