extract_calendarPull ICS/iCalendar events from an email and return structured details such as time, location, attendees, and status for scheduling or automation.
Extract calendar events (ICS/iCalendar) from an email. Returns structured event data including time, location, attendees, and status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | Yes | Account name | |
| mailbox | No | Mailbox path (default: INBOX) | INBOX |
| email_id | Yes | Email UID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the return shape (time, location, attendees, status), but it says nothing about behavior when no calendar part exists or how parsing failures surface.
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?
Two tight sentences: the first states what is extracted and from where, the second lists the returned fields. Nothing is redundant and the essential information is front-loaded.
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 read-only, three-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete: it names the source and the returned fields. It only omits behavior for emails without an ICS part, which is a minor gap given the low complexity.
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%, with account, mailbox, and email_id all documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states a specific verb (Extract) and resource (calendar events / ICS from an email), and the parenthetical format hint (ICS/iCalendar) pins down what is being parsed. It implicitly distinguishes itself from extract_contacts by resource type, though it never names that near-parallel sibling to route the agent explicitly.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_email, extract_contacts, or add_to_calendar, nor any stated preconditions (e.g. the email must actually contain an ICS part). The 'from an email' phrasing only weakly implies the required email_id context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.