Atwork

Read Calendar Events

calendar.read

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the user's calendar events in an inclusive date range. Optionally restrict to one calendar by id. Returns up to limit event objects with id, summary, startDate/endDate (and times if present), dueDate, assigneeId + assigneeName, calendarId + calendarName, location, and an optional truncated content. Prefer the *Name fields in user-facing prose; the *Id fields are FKs for follow-up tools.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max events to return
`endDate`	Yes	ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD), inclusive
`startDate`	Yes	ISO date (YYYY-MM-DD), inclusive
`calendarId`	No	Limit to one calendar

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`events`	Yes	Events in the range sorted by start/due date; dates are ISO strings, `content` is capped at 300 chars

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 4, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / events / items / properties / calendarId / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / events / items / properties / calendarId / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number"
+]
```
First observedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are capped by limit, content may be truncated, and *Id fields are FKs for follow-up tools. It still omits ordering or timezone/recurrence handling, so it is not fully transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded and composed of two efficient sentences. The return-field enumeration is somewhat long given that an output schema exists, though it also carries useful name-versus-id guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a date-range listing tool with annotations and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers scope, filtering, limit behavior, truncation, and output field interpretation. Minor gaps remain around ordering, pagination beyond limit, and date/timezone semantics.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description mostly restates what the schema already documents: inclusive startDate/endDate, optional calendarId filtering, and limit. It adds little parameter meaning beyond the schema itself, which matches the baseline 3 for fully documented parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: 'List the user's calendar events in an inclusive date range.' It is clearly a read/list operation and distinct from calendar.create/update/propose_times, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with related read tools such as schedule.read or availability.read.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the intended use through the date-range scope and optional calendar filter, and it includes output-consumption guidance about preferring *Name fields. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Atwork tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?