Google Calendar MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool converts timestamps to date format but lacks details on behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., invalid timestamps), output format specifics (e.g., date string format), performance considerations (e.g., rate limits for batch processing), or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded in a single sentence: 'Batch convert the provided list of timestamps to date format, used for processing multiple timestamps.' It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by separating usage context).

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 complexity (batch processing tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks critical details such as the expected timestamp format, output format, error handling, and how it differs from sibling tools. This makes it inadequate for an agent to reliably use the tool without additional context.

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?

The description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema: it indicates 'tsList' is a 'list of timestamps' for conversion. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema only defines 'tsList' as an array of numbers without explaining what constitutes a valid timestamp (e.g., Unix epoch in seconds/milliseconds). The description partially compensates but doesn't fully clarify parameter meaning or constraints.

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's purpose: 'Batch convert the provided list of timestamps to date format, used for processing multiple timestamps.' It specifies the verb ('convert'), resource ('timestamps'), and scope ('batch' for multiple timestamps). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from its sibling 'getDateByTimestamp' (which likely handles single timestamps), missing full sibling differentiation.

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?

The description implies usage for processing multiple timestamps ('batch convert...multiple timestamps'), suggesting this tool is for bulk operations versus single conversions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'getDateByTimestamp' or provide exclusions (e.g., for single timestamps). The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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