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 for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, output format, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, though the simple nature of the tool mitigates some risk.

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 ('Get the current timestamp') that is front-loaded with the core purpose. There is zero waste or redundancy, and it's appropriately sized for a simple tool. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough for basic understanding. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., timestamp in seconds, milliseconds, or ISO string) and any behavioral context, which could be important for integration. For a simple tool, this is adequate but with clear gaps in completeness.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter details.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('current timestamp'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'getDateByTimestamp' or 'batchGetDateByTimestamp', but the focus on 'current' rather than conversion from a timestamp provides implicit differentiation. The description avoids tautology by not simply restating the tool name.

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 context through 'current timestamp,' suggesting this tool is for obtaining the present time rather than converting timestamps (which siblings handle). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'getDateByTimestamp' or 'cal,' and doesn't mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is clear but not fully articulated with alternatives.

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