calendar_query_freebusyReturn busy intervals for one or more calendars between two RFC 3339 timestamps to identify available time slots for scheduling.
Return busy intervals for calendars (default: primary) between two RFC 3339 times.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| time_max | Yes | ||
| time_min | Yes | ||
| time_zone | No | ||
| calendar_ids | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the default-to-primary behavior and the RFC 3339 time format, but says nothing about response shape, per-calendar error handling for inaccessible calendars, or limits.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, no filler. It is arguably over-compressed for four undocumented parameters, but nothing is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with 0% schema coverage on four parameters, the description leaves time_zone entirely undefined and does not clarify multi-calendar behavior, which is a real gap for an agent building the call.
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 0%, so the description must compensate and only partly does: it pins down the RFC 3339 format for time_min/time_max and the primary default for calendar_ids. The time_zone parameter is never mentioned and calendar_ids' array semantics (multiple calendars in one call) are only implied.
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?
States a specific verb ('Return busy intervals'), the resource (calendars), and the scoping inputs (two RFC 3339 times, default primary). An agent can tell this is a free/busy read rather than an event listing, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
No guidance on when to call this versus calendar_list_events or calendar_get_event, which are the obvious adjacent tools. The only contextual hint is the '(default: primary)' parenthetical, which is scope, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.