claw-mcp-toolkit

productivity_calendar_event

Create calendar events in iCal format for scheduling and time management. Specify title, date, time, duration, and description to generate structured calendar entries.

Instructions

Generate a calendar event in iCal format

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "date": "<date>"
    },
    "name": "productivity_calendar_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	Yes	Event title
`date`	Yes	Date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`time`	No	Time (HH:MM)	09:00
`duration_minutes`	No	Duration in minutes
`description`	No	Event description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Mar 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it specifies the output format ('iCal format'), it fails to clarify whether this returns a string, creates a file, requires specific permissions, or has side effects on external calendar systems.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Extremely concise single sentence with no wasted words. Each component earns its place: action (Generate), resource (calendar event), and format (iCal). However, the brevity comes at the cost of completeness given the lack of annotations.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Simple tool with 5 well-documented parameters and no nested objects. The description adequately covers the core function but lacks critical output details (what 'generate' returns) and safety information, which should be present given the absence of output schema and annotations.

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 has 100% description coverage (all 5 parameters documented), establishing a baseline of 3. The description provides iCal context but does not add parameter-specific semantics (e.g., time format details, default behavior) beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Clear verb ('Generate') and resource ('calendar event') with specific output format ('iCal'). Distinguishes from siblings like 'productivity_note' and 'social_content_calendar' by specifying the iCal format, though differentiation from 'productivity_reminder' is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'productivity_reminder' or 'productivity_task_breakdown'. No mention of prerequisites or when generation is preferred over other productivity tools.

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