Retrieve all calendars on the connected Google Calendar account with their IDs, summaries, and access roles. Use it to discover which calendars an AI assistant can read or manage.
List all calendars available on this account with id, summary, and access role.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses scope (all calendars on this account) and the shape of the returned fields, which is useful, but says nothing about authentication requirements, pagination, or rate limits for a listing call.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the return fields are stated immediately without redundancy.
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?
With no output schema and no parameters, the description compensates reasonably by naming the fields returned (id, summary, access role). For a trivial zero-arg read tool this is nearly sufficient, though it omits any note on account scope or auth.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface for the description to illuminate or neglect.
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 (List) and resource (calendars) and even enumerates returned fields (id, summary, access role). It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but the sibling set is entirely event-focused, so the distinction 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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before calling list_events or create_event, but the description never says when to reach for it or what it is not for. No alternatives or preconditions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.