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 conversion action but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as input validation (e.g., handling invalid timestamps), output format details (e.g., date string format), error handling, or performance aspects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple conversion tool, with zero wasted text.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output (e.g., date format), error cases, and usage context relative to siblings. While concise, it doesn't provide enough information for reliable agent invocation without additional assumptions.

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 with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'timestamp' but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's 'ts' property—e.g., it doesn't specify units (seconds, milliseconds), range, or format expectations. This fails to adequately address the low schema coverage.

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: converting a timestamp to a date format. It specifies the verb 'convert' and the resource 'timestamp', making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'batchGetDateByTimestamp' (which likely processes multiple timestamps) or 'cal' (which might be a calendar tool), so it falls short of a perfect score.

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' for bulk operations or 'getNow' for current time, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied from the purpose, but explicit context is missing.

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