himalaya-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

extract_calendar_event

Extracts calendar event details from an email's ICS attachment, including summary, dates, location, and organizer.

Instructions

Extract calendar event details from an email's ICS attachment. Downloads all attachments, finds the .ics file, parses it, and returns event summary, dates, location, and organizer.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "extract_calendar_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Email message ID containing the calendar invite
`folder`	No	Folder name (default: INBOX)
`account`	No	Account name (uses default if omitted)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv2.2.2Nov 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / id / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+    "minimum": 0,
+    "type": "integer"
+  }
+]

removedInput schema / properties / id / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```

First observedv1.7.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it states that the tool downloads all attachments, finds the .ics file, parses it, and returns specific fields. It leaves gaps around failure modes, multiple ICS files, and whether downloads are cached or persistent.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the processing and return details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or vague wording.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a moderate-complexity extraction tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the process and lists returned fields. It could better address edge cases like missing ICS attachments or multiple attachments, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents id, folder, and account with defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond indicating that the id refers to an email containing a calendar invite, which is already clear from the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Extract calendar event details from an email's ICS attachment.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_calendar_event and list_attachments by focusing on parsing an existing ICS attachment.

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 when to use it: when an email contains an ICS attachment and event details are needed. However, it gives no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use it, such as using list_attachments first or handling emails without ICS files.

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