Skip to main content
Glama
AnByoungHyun

Google Calendar MCP

by AnByoungHyun

get_event_detail

Retrieve detailed information about a specific event on Google Calendar by providing its unique event ID. Simplify event management with direct access to event specifics within the MCP server.

Instructions

일정 ID로 상세 정보 조회

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
event_idYes

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'get_event_detail' tool, decorated with @mcp.tool() for registration and implementation. It fetches the detailed event information from Google Calendar API using the provided event_id.
    @mcp.tool()
    def get_event_detail(event_id: str) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """일정 ID로 상세 정보 조회"""
        service = get_calendar_service()
        event = service.events().get(calendarId='primary', eventId=event_id).execute()
        return event
  • Supporting utility function that handles OAuth authentication and returns the Google Calendar API service instance, essential for the tool's operation.
    def get_calendar_service():
        creds = None
        if os.path.exists(TOKEN_FILE):
            with open(TOKEN_FILE, "rb") as token:
                creds = pickle.load(token)
        if not creds or not creds.valid:
            if creds and creds.expired and creds.refresh_token:
                creds.refresh(Request())
            else:
                flow = InstalledAppFlow.from_client_secrets_file(CLIENT_SECRET_FILE, SCOPES)
                creds = flow.run_local_server(port=0)
            with open(TOKEN_FILE, "wb") as token:
                pickle.dump(creds, token)
        service = build("calendar", "v3", credentials=creds)
        return service 
Behavior2/5

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 this is a retrieval operation ('조회'), implying it's read-only, but doesn't confirm if it's safe (e.g., no side effects), mention authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with zero 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise—a single phrase in Korean that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with no unnecessary words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying the core action and resource.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what '상세 정보' (detailed information) includes, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits like error cases. For a retrieval tool with no structured output, more context on return values would be helpful to the agent.

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?

The description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema. It specifies that 'event_id' is used to retrieve details, which aligns with the schema's single required parameter. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema provides no details about 'event_id' (e.g., format, examples). The description doesn't compensate by explaining what an event_id is or where to get it, leaving the parameter semantics largely undocumented.

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 '일정 ID로 상세 정보 조회' (Retrieve detailed information by schedule ID) clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('조회' - retrieve) and resource ('상세 정보' - detailed information). It distinguishes from siblings like list_day_events or list_month_events by focusing on a single event's details rather than listing multiple events. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from update_event in terms of read vs. write operations.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid event_id), when not to use it (e.g., for listing events), or direct alternatives like list_day_events for broader queries. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AnByoungHyun/google_calendar_mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server