Retrieve planned calendar entries including workouts, races, and goals over a configurable date range, defaulting to the next 28 days.
Planned calendar entries: future workouts, races and goals.
Defaults to today through 28 days ahead. Pass an earlier oldest to see
what was planned in the past. An empty list means nothing is scheduled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| newest | No | ||
| oldest | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses useful behaviors: default range, backwards-expandable window, and empty-list semantics. It omits sorting/timezone/date-format details, but for a simple read-only calendar tool these are not critical.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core subject, then default behavior, then edge-case semantics. Every sentence contributes.
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 annotations, the description covers the main call patterns and empty-result interpretation. It is not fully complete because 'newest' and date formatting are left unspecified.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the default range and how to use 'oldest', but it never explicitly describes the 'newest' parameter or expected date format, leaving a real gap.
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 clearly identifies the resource as planned calendar entries and enumerates content types (future workouts, races, goals), which distinguishes it from activity-history siblings like list_activities and list_workouts. It lacks an explicit verb, relying on the tool name, but the intent is unambiguous.
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 gives clear operational context: the default date window (today to 28 days ahead), how to retrieve past planned entries via an earlier oldest, and how to interpret an empty result. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.