grr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

calendar.acl.get

Retrieves a specific access control rule for a calendar using its calendar ID and rule ID, returning the rule details as JSON.

Instructions

Returns an access control rule [HTTP GET]. Returns the requested resource as JSON — request bodies are built from the typed parameters (typed flags win over the params map), or read whole from body_file Siblings over the same resource: delete, insert, list, patch, update, watch.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	No	Extra KEY=VALUE query pairs for endpoints whose parameters Discovery does not describe.
`params`	No	Parameter map merged into the request; typed parameters win.
`ruleId`	Yes	[URL path segment] ACL rule identifier.
`dry_run`	No	Return the request that would be sent, without sending it.
`body_file`	No	Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters.
`calendarId`	Yes	[URL path segment] Calendar identifier. To retrieve calendar IDs call the calendarList.list method. If you want to access the primary calendar of the currently logged in user, use

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`etag`	No
`kind`	No
`role`	No
`scope`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / calendarId / description

Previous value: -"Calendar identifier. To retrieve calendar IDs call the calendarList.list method. If you want to access the primary calendar of the currently logged in user, use"New value: +"[URL path segment] Calendar identifier. To retrieve calendar IDs call the calendarList.list method. If you want to access the primary calendar of the currently logged in user, use"

changedInput schema / properties / ruleId / description

Previous value: -"ACL rule identifier."New value: +"[URL path segment] ACL rule identifier."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "etag": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "kind": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "role": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "scope": {
+      "properties": {
+        "type": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "value": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does mention 'HTTP GET' and 'Returns the requested resource as JSON', which conveys read-only behavior and output format. However, it includes irrelevant generic boilerplate about request bodies and body_file, which is misleading for a GET request and omits important behavioral details like required permissions or error behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose is front-loaded, but the second sentence is long and includes boilerplate about request bodies that is irrelevant for a GET tool. Every sentence should earn its place, and the body_file content does not.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema and full parameter coverage, so the description needn't explain return values. Still, for a GET tool with no annotations, it should mention auth requirements or error cases. The presence of misleading body-building instructions reduces completeness for this specific operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents calendarId and ruleId. The description adds no specific meaning about these parameters; it only includes a generic note about typed parameters winning over the params map. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema covers all parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns an access control rule'. It also lists sibling tools over the same resource, which helps distinguish it from delete/insert/list/patch/update/watch. However, the boilerplate about request bodies dilutes the focus and could confuse an agent about what this tool actually does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description names siblings, implying this is the single-rule getter, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus those siblings (e.g., 'use this to retrieve one ACL rule; use list for all rules'). Usage is only implied, not spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server