Crawlora MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

luma_place_calendars

Retrieve public calendars listed for a Luma place by slug, excluding personal and blocked calendars, to view available event schedules.

Instructions

List public calendars for a Luma place. Returns calendars that Luma publicly lists for a place. Personal and blocked calendars are omitted.

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "luma_place_calendars"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes	Luma place page slug

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.17.20Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful filtering trait (personal and blocked calendars are excluded) but says nothing about ordering, pagination, empty results, authentication needs, or what a returned calendar contains — significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Three short sentences, but the second ("Returns calendars that Luma publicly lists for a place") nearly restates the first, and the third adds the only genuinely new information. The front-loading is correct; a sentence of redundancy keeps it from being tight.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place the return value could be characterized, and it never describes the shape of a calendar object or how many are returned. For a simple read tool this is thin — an agent would not know what fields to expect.

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% and there is a single required 'slug' parameter already documented as a Luma place page slug. The description adds only light framing that the slug identifies a place, not new syntax, format, or lookup guidance.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "List public calendars for a Luma place." The scope qualifier (public only) separates it from any personal-calendar equivalent, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings such as luma_place_events or luma_calendar.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource: reach for it when you need the calendars attached to a place. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., needing a resolved place slug first), and no mention of alternatives for event listings.

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

Deploy Server