get_calendarRetrieve metadata for a specific Google Calendar to access its properties like time zone and summary. Provide the calendar ID, or use 'primary' for the main calendar.
Get metadata for a specific calendar.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| calendar_id | Yes | Calendar ID (use 'primary' for the user's primary calendar) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description does not confirm read-only semantics, does not mention permission/auth requirements, and says nothing about behavior on a missing or inaccessible calendar_id. The output schema covers the return shape, which softens the gap.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though nearly minimal to the point of being terse for a tool whose behavior is otherwise undocumented.
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 single-parameter read tool with a fully described schema and an output schema covering return values, the description is sufficient to invoke correctly. What is missing (auth needs, error behavior) is minor at this complexity level.
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%, and the schema already documents calendar_id including the 'primary' special value. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb (get) and resource (calendar metadata), so the agent knows it retrieves one calendar's metadata rather than a list. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_event or list_calendars.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as list_calendars for enumeration or get_event for event data. Usage is only implied by the wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.