Google Calendar and Meet MCP Server

calendar_v3_quick_add

Add Google Calendar events using natural language text input like 'Meeting with team tomorrow at 3pm' to schedule appointments quickly.

Instructions

[Calendar API v3] Create event using natural language

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "calendar_v3_quick_add"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`calendar_id`	No	Calendar ID to add event to (default: 'primary')
`text`	Yes	Natural language description (e.g., 'Lunch with John tomorrow at 2pm')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jan 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation tool but doesn't mention permissions required, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success. The description lacks crucial behavioral context for a write operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise - just 7 words total. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and every word earns its place. The bracketed API version context is minimal and useful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what gets returned, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The natural language aspect is mentioned but not elaborated (e.g., parsing limitations, supported formats).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create event using natural language' specifies the verb (create) and resource (event) with the unique natural language aspect. It distinguishes from sibling calendar_v3_create_event by mentioning natural language processing, though not explicitly naming the alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context through 'using natural language' and the text parameter example, suggesting this tool is for quick, informal event creation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. calendar_v3_create_event or provide any exclusions or prerequisites.

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