Retrieves constructor option references for RollDate Core or Events, letting you look up configuration names and filter by a specific option when integrating the date picker.
Return constructor options reference for RollDate Core or Events.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Optional option name filter, e.g. enableTime or onVisibleRangeChange | |
| product | No | RollDate product. Default: core (date picker). Use events for event calendars. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.2Input schema / properties / name / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional option name filter, e.g. enableTime"New value: +"Optional option name filter, e.g. enableTime or onVisibleRangeChange"Input schema / properties / productAdded value: +{
+ "description": "RollDate product. Default: core (date picker). Use events for event calendars.",
+ "enum": [
+ "core",
+ "events"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Return ... reference' implies a read-only, non-destructive lookup, which is adequate for a reference tool, but it says nothing about return shape, pagination, or caching 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?
A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no waste. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is part of why other dimensions are thin.
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?
For a two-optional-parameter, read-only reference tool with no output schema, the description is minimally viable but does not describe what the returned options reference contains or how to consume it. Nothing is missing that would cause a wrong call, but the agent gets little beyond the schema.
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 100% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the enum values and default for 'product'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb and resource — 'Return constructor options reference' — scoped to 'RollDate Core or Events'. It is distinct from siblings like get_methods and get_snippet, though it does not explicitly say how it differs from them.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus get_methods, get_snippet, or the other reference-lookup siblings. The only hint is the schema parameter describing the product default, which the description itself does not repeat or contextualize.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.