Retrieve detailed information about a specific calendar in a Kanka campaign. Provide the campaign and calendar IDs to access its settings, days, months, and related data.
Get details of a calendar
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| campaignId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does 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 only says 'Get details of a calendar' and gives no information about read-only guarantees, not-found behavior, permissions, or response shape. The verb 'Get' weakly implies a read operation, but that is not sufficient for full transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief, front-loaded, and free of filler. However, it is so minimal that it sacrifices informative content, making it under-specified rather than effectively concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With two required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain how campaignId and id relate to retrieving a calendar. It does not mention the returned data, error cases, or usage context, leaving a significant completeness gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation of what campaignId or id mean. 'id' can be guessed as the calendar identifier from context, but campaignId's role is completely unexplained, leaving a factual gap in how to call the tool correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('calendar'), which is enough to distinguish it from list_calendars and create/update/delete_calendar siblings. However, it does not specify what 'details' includes, so it is clear but not maximally precise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use get_calendar versus list_calendars or other get_* tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema rather than being told the appropriate context or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.