SavvyCal MCP Server

Get scheduling link

get_scheduling_link

Read-only

Fetch a SavvyCal scheduling link's settings and booking form fields by link ID to inspect its booking setup.

Instructions

Get one scheduling link with its settings and booking form fields.

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": {
      "linkId": "<linkId>"
    },
    "name": "get_scheduling_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`linkId`	Yes	Scheduling link ID, e.g. link_01J5KC2G... (from list_scheduling_links)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the response includes settings and booking form fields, which matters because there is no output schema, but says nothing about failure modes (missing/invalid linkId) or permissions.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; everything in it is informative given the absence of an output schema.

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 simple read-only single-record getter with complete schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety hints, the description is nearly sufficient, and its summary of the returned fields compensates for the missing output schema. Only error/boundary behavior is left unstated.

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 coverage is 100% and the single linkId parameter is fully documented with a format example and a pointer to list_scheduling_links as the source. 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.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb (get) plus resource (scheduling link) and a note on what the payload contains (settings and booking form fields). The singular 'one' implicitly separates it from list_scheduling_links, but no sibling is named, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No statement of when to use this over get_event, list_scheduling_links, or find_available_slots, and no prerequisites called out. The only usage signal is the implied 'you need an ID to fetch one record,' which the agent must infer from the singular phrasing.

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

Deploy Server