Set which sub-calendars of a connected account remain active by specifying calendar IDs to keep.
Set which sub-calendars of a connected account are active.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| frameId | No | ||
| active_calendars | Yes | Calendar ids to keep active. |
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 / active_calendars / items / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / active_calendars / items / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description scopes the operation to a connected account but does not disclose whether active_calendars replaces the full set or merges with existing active calendars. Since annotations only indicate non-readonly and non-destructive, the description leaves important mutation semantics unexplained.
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 compact sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices detail needed for parameter clarity.
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 mutating tool with no output schema and an unexplained required id, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot confidently determine what id to pass, whether the active set is replaced, or how this differs from sibling calendar tools.
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 only 33%, covering just active_calendars. The description does not explain what id or frameId represent, leaving the required id ambiguous; it only reinforces active_calendars without compensating for the undocumented parameters.
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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and a clear resource ('which sub-calendars of a connected account are active'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself from calendar-level operations like skylight_set_default_calendar, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 a use case but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus related calendar tools such as skylight_set_default_calendar or skylight_categorize_source_calendar. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.