Google Workspace MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'accessible to the authenticated user', which hints at permission requirements, but lacks details on rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'formatted list' entails. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are clear but slightly redundant since an output schema exists. Every sentence adds value, though it could be more concise by omitting the return statement given the output schema.

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?

Given 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the parameter's purpose and return format, but lacks behavioral context like authentication needs or error cases. With annotations absent and simple complexity, it meets baseline but doesn't excel.

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 adds meaning by explaining that 'user_google_email' is 'The user's Google email address' and is 'Required', which clarifies beyond the schema's basic title. However, it doesn't detail format constraints or examples, leaving some gaps. With 1 parameter and partial compensation, a 4 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieves a list of calendars accessible to the authenticated user.' It specifies the verb ('retrieves') and resource ('calendars'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_events' or 'list_task_lists' by focusing on calendars. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential calendar-related siblings not present in the list, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication status), compare to other list tools like 'list_drive_items', or specify scenarios where this is appropriate. The only implied usage is for retrieving calendars, but no explicit when/when-not instructions are given.

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