Set the source calendar used by default for new events. Specify a source-calendar ID to ensure newly created events go to the intended calendar.
Set the default source calendar for new events.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Source-calendar id to make the default for new events. | |
| frameId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.7.1Input schema / properties / id / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / id / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations tell the agent this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) that is not destructive and is open-world. The description adds the semantic consequence (affects defaults for new events) but does not disclose persistence, reversibility, or whether it changes existing events. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is fair but context is thin.
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 that is appropriately sized. No filler, though it could be slightly richer without becoming verbose.
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 two-parameter mutation tool with annotations, the description covers the essential purpose. However, it omits when the change takes effect, whether it overwrites an existing default, and what frameId means, leaving gaps for correct invocation.
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 50%; the 'id' parameter is documented as the source-calendar id, but 'frameId' has no description in either schema or description. Baseline 3 applies since the description does not compensate for the undocumented frameId.
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 (set) and resource (default source calendar for new events), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like skylight_update_calendar or skylight_create_source_calendar. However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative or scope the frame context.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites or alternatives mentioned. An agent cannot tell from the description alone whether to use this versus skylight_update_calendar with a default-flag parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.