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 full burden. It mentions the expr-eval library and lists constants (E, PI, true, false), but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: error handling for invalid expressions, performance characteristics, security implications of evaluating arbitrary expressions, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 reasonably concise but could be better structured. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but the constant table feels appended rather than integrated. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, but the table format might not be optimal for agent comprehension. Every sentence earns its place, but the structure could be more cohesive.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and some constants but misses: return value format, error conditions, expression syntax details, and comparison to sibling tools. For a mathematical evaluation tool with these gaps, the description should provide more comprehensive 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 input schema has 1 parameter (exp) with 0% description coverage. The description adds some meaning by specifying it's a 'mathematical expression' and listing supported constants, but doesn't detail syntax rules, operator support, or expression complexity limits. With low schema coverage, the description partially compensates but doesn't fully document parameter semantics.

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: 'evaluate the input mathematical expression and return the result' using the expr-eval library. It specifies the verb (evaluate), resource (mathematical expression), and implementation detail (expr-eval library). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like batchGetDateByTimestamp, which appear to handle date/timestamp operations rather than mathematical evaluation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like batchGetDateByTimestamp, getDateByTimestamp, or getNow, nor does it specify scenarios where mathematical evaluation is appropriate versus date/timestamp operations. The constant table implies support for logical operations, but no explicit usage context is given.

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