Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Infomaniak Calendar MCP Server

Infomaniak Calendar MCP Server

Official
by Infomaniak
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

calendar_list_calendars

List all available Infomaniak calendars to identify calendar names and IDs for searching events or creating new events.

Instructions

List all available Infomaniak calendars

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "calendar_list_calendars"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'All available' does disclose scope (implying shared/subscribed calendars are included) and 'List' implies a read-only operation, but there is no statement about pagination, ordering, permissions required, or result shape.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero redundant wording. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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 parameterless read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and scope adequately. The only real gap is that it does not tell the agent what a returned calendar entry looks like or how to use the identifiers downstream.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the empty object schema matches the 'list all' semantics described. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.

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 (List) and resource (calendars) with the scope qualifier 'all available' and the provider 'Infomaniak'. The resource itself separates it from the event-oriented siblings (calendar_list_events, calendar_get_event, etc.), though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is only implied by the description: the zero-argument 'list all' framing suggests it is the discovery step before event tools, but an agent must infer that this is the way to obtain calendar identifiers.

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