get_calendar_task_detailsFetch a calendar task's full record using its internal ID, including repeat rule details, for accurate scheduling and task review.
Get a single calendar task's full record by internal ID, including its repeat rule if any.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| calendar_task_id | Yes | Internal numeric calendar task ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only that the record is complete and includes an optional repeat rule, which is helpful but not a major behavioral disclosure; with annotations carrying the load, this is adequate.
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 sentence with no filler; the main action and distinguishing repeat-rule detail are both included. Every word earns its place.
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-only lookup, the description combined with annotations and full schema coverage is nearly complete. It tells the agent what it will get ('full record'), including the special repeat-rule edge case, though it does not describe not-found behavior or response format in detail.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage and the single parameter, calendar_task_id, is fully described as an internal numeric ID. The tool description adds no additional parameter explanation, which is acceptable because the schema already documents everything needed.
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'), a precise resource ('a single calendar task's full record'), and the lookup key ('internal ID'), and it adds the distinguishing detail that the response includes the repeat rule. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling list tool get_calendar_tasks and from get_job_details.
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 phrase 'a single ... by internal ID' clearly signals that this tool is for fetching one task when the ID is known, as opposed to listing tasks (get_calendar_tasks). It does not name alternatives or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.