Retrieve calendars timelines can use in a LegendKeeper project, including built-in and custom calendars with IDs, names, months, and eras.
List the calendars timelines can use (built-in ones like gregorian, harptos, exandria, plus custom calendars): id, name, months and eras.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Configured project (world) name. Omit to use the default project; see list_projects. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds no further behavioral context such as auth/permission needs, scoping by project, or whether custom calendars are user-created. It does hint at the returned content, which is mildly useful.
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 sentence with a front-loaded verb-resource phrase and the return fields appended; every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.
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, the description helpfully discloses the returned fields (id, name, months, eras), which is the main gap it needs to fill. Annotations cover safety, and the sole parameter is covered by the schema. Only the lack of any guidance on when to call it versus other list_* tools keeps it from a 5.
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%: the single optional `project` parameter is documented in the schema, including the cross-reference to list_projects. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("List the calendars timelines can use") and enumerates the domain with concrete examples (gregorian, harptos, exandria, plus custom). It also names the returned fields. It does not explicitly route against a sibling (e.g. list_projects or get_resource), but the resource 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 phrase "calendars timelines can use" implies this is a prerequisite lookup before creating timeline events or lanes, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no preconditions, and no named alternative. Usage must be inferred from the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.