Identify overlapping events in your Google Calendar schedule to surface scheduling conflicts within a specified date range, helping you resolve double bookings before they happen.
Examina el calendario para detectar solapamientos y conflictos de horario entre eventos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endDate | No | Fecha de fin del rango (YYYY-MM-DD, opcional) | |
| startDate | No | Fecha de inicio del rango (YYYY-MM-DD, opcional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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. 'Examina' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies anything, what it returns, or how optional date parameters affect behavior.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. The purpose is immediately front-loaded and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
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?
For a low-complexity tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps: it does not explain what happens if no date range is provided, what the return value looks like, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a minimal viable definition but not fully complete.
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 100%, so both startDate and endDate are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning about formatting, range semantics, or behavior when parameters are omitted, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Examina... detectar') and identifies the resource (calendar/eventos) and outcome (solapamientos y conflictos). It clearly conveys what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings like find_free_slots or list_events.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_free_slots or get_workload_analytics. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context about when conflict detection is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.