Retrieve today's scheduled events from Google Calendar. Specify an account email to fetch events for that calendar, or use the default account.
Get today's calendar events.
Args: account: Email address of the account to use. Omit for default account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' indicates a read-only operation, and the account-handling behavior is described, but there is no mention of timezone handling, authorization, or what the returned payload looks like.
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?
Two short opening sentences followed by a clear Args block. Every sentence adds useful information, and the main purpose is front-loaded.
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?
The tool is simple: one optional parameter and an output schema exists. The description covers the essential selection and account logic. Minor ambiguity remains around what 'today' means across timezones or default account selection, but these are not blocking for a basic call.
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?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains the single parameter: it is an email address, which account it selects, and that omitting it uses the default. This is sufficient for an agent to set the value correctly.
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?
Names a specific action and resource: 'Get today's calendar events.' The scope is clear and distinct enough from siblings like calendar_week or calendar_create_event.
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 implies usage for retrieving today's events, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. No sibling comparison is made.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.