Retrieve calendar events for a specified date range in UTC. Defaults to the next 7 days when no dates are provided. Use it to view scheduled meetings and appointments.
读取指定时间段内的日历事件（时区 UTC）。不传时间则默认未来 7 天。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 返回条数，默认 50 | |
| endDateTime | No | 结束时间，格式 2026-09-30T23:59:59，默认 7 天后 | |
| startDateTime | No | 起始时间，格式 2026-09-23T00:00:00，默认今天 00:00 |
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 and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the UTC timezone and default 7-day window, which is useful behavioral context, but it does not mention ordering, pagination limits beyond the schema, or any other runtime behavior.
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 one short, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action, timezone, and default behavior with zero wasted words. 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 simple read-only list tool with optional parameters, the description plus the fully documented schema and readOnly/openWorld annotations give an agent everything needed to call it correctly. No output schema is present, but none is required to understand the basic return of calendar events.
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 100%, so every parameter is already documented with type, format, and default. The description only restates the default time range concept, adding no meaningful meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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 reads calendar events within a specified time period and specifies the timezone (UTC). The verb '读取' (read/list) plus the resource 'calendar events' makes the purpose obvious, and the email-focused sibling tools are clearly distinct.
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 explains the default behavior when no time parameters are passed, which gives useful context on when to call the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings or provide exclusions/alternatives, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.