Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
feishu-user-plugin

feishu-user-plugin

by EthanQC
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

respond_calendar_event

Respond to event invitations by accepting, declining, or marking tentative. Requires attendee status and proper authorization.

Instructions

[Official API + UAT, v1.3.7] Respond to an event invitation. The current identity must be in the event's attendee list. Requires calendar:calendar.event:write scope.

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": {
      "calendar_id": "<calendar_id>",
      "event_id": "<event_id>",
      "rsvp_status": "<rsvp_status>"
    },
    "name": "respond_calendar_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
calendar_idYesCalendar ID
event_idYesEvent ID
rsvp_statusYesYour response

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.10

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses some behavioral traits (identity requirement, scope), but omits details like success/failure responses, irreversibility, or multiple response handling.

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 very concise, with one sentence providing version info and two sentences giving constraints. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description lacks mention of return values or side effects, which is important for a write tool. With no output schema, more context about the response is needed.

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 description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 as 'Respond to an event invitation' with a specific verb and resource. It adds identity and scope requirements, but does not differentiate from siblings like update_calendar_event.

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?

It mentions that the current identity must be in the attendee list and requires a specific scope, implying context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools