grr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

calendar.acl.update

Updates an existing calendar access control rule to change a user's or group's sharing role or scope. Use it to modify who can view or edit a calendar.

Instructions

Updates an access control rule [HTTP PUT] — updates the resource; refused under --readonly safety profiles. Returns the API's response resource as JSON — request body is a JSON AclRule object accepting etag, id, kind, role, scope; pass it via params or whole via body_file Siblings over the same resource: delete, get, insert, list, patch, 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. The body is a JSON AclRule object.
`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
`request_body`	No	Request body of type AclRule: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.
`sendNotifications`	No	[query parameter] Whether to send notifications about the calendar sharing change. Note that there are no notifications on access removal. Optional. The default is True.

Output Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / body_file / description

Previous value: -"Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters."New value: +"Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters. The body is a JSON AclRule object."

addedInput schema / properties / request_body

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Request body of type AclRule: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.",
+  "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"
+}

Changed4 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."

changedInput schema / properties / sendNotifications / description

Previous value: -"Whether to send notifications about the calendar sharing change. Note that there are no notifications on access removal. Optional. The default is True."New value: +"[query parameter] Whether to send notifications about the calendar sharing change. Note that there are no notifications on access removal. Optional. The default is True."

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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does reasonable work: it discloses the HTTP PUT semantics, that it is refused under readonly profiles, that it returns the API's response resource as JSON, and it describes the request body shape (AclRule with etag, id, kind, role, scope). It stops short of describing side effects on existing rules or required permissions beyond the readonly note.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and every clause carries information (method, safety, return, body). It is dense and em-dash-heavy, but no sentence is wasted.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values, and it still notes they are the API's JSON resource. It covers body handling, params routing, safety, and alternatives. Some behavioral gaps (permission requirements, effect on existing rules) remain, keeping it below 5.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining how the body is supplied — 'pass it via `params` or whole via `body_file`' — and enumerates the AclRule fields. This adds usable meaning beyond the schema about the params/body_file routing.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Updates an access control rule'), names the HTTP method (PUT), and explicitly lists the sibling operations over the same resource (delete, get, insert, list, patch, watch). An agent can distinguish it from calendar.acl.patch without opening a schema.

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?

Adds a real usage constraint ('refused under --readonly safety profiles') but only lists the alternative siblings without saying when to prefer update over patch or delete. Usage is implied by the operation type rather than explicitly routed.

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

Deploy Server