MCP OpsBridge

calendar_query_events

Query Google Calendar events between two dates. Optionally filter by calendar and cap the number of results.

Instructions

List events in a date range from Google Calendar

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": {
      "time_min": "<time_min>",
      "time_max": "<time_max>"
    },
    "name": "calendar_query_events"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`time_max`	Yes	End of time range (ISO 8601), e.g., 2026-07-31T23:59:59Z
`time_min`	Yes	Start of time range (ISO 8601), e.g., 2026-07-01T00:00:00Z
`calendar_id`	No	Calendar ID or "primary"	primary
`max_results`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation via 'List', which is useful, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, handling of canceled events, or any authentication/rate-limit concerns. This is a moderate level of transparency for a simple list tool.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it efficient and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. However, it leaves out details like response structure, default behavior for max_results, and what event fields are returned, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

The schema already describes time_min, time_max, and calendar_id, covering 75% of parameters. The description's 'date range' only restates the time parameters without adding new meaning. It does not explain max_results or any parameter nuances beyond the schema, leaving a minor gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb 'List', names the resource 'events', and specifies the scope 'in a date range from Google Calendar'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like calendar_get_event_details (single event) and calendar_find_free_slots (availability).

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?

The description implies the tool is for retrieving events within a time window, but it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of other calendar tools. No exclusions or alternative tool suggestions are provided, so the usage context is only implied.

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