grr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

calendar.calendars.get

Retrieves metadata for a specified calendar using its calendar ID to inspect properties and configuration before updates or management.

Instructions

Returns metadata for a calendar [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: clear, delete, insert, patch, transferOwnership, update.

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.
`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
`summary`	No
`location`	No
`timeZone`	No
`dataOwner`	No
`description`	No
`labelProperties`	No
`conferenceProperties`	No
`autoAcceptInvitations`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 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"

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "autoAcceptInvitations": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "conferenceProperties": {
+      "properties": {
+        "allowedConferenceSolutionTypes": {
+          "items": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "dataOwner": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "description": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "etag": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "kind": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "labelProperties": {
+      "properties": {
+        "eventLabels": {
+          "items": {
+            "properties": {
+              "backgroundColor": {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "id": {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "name": {
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "location": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "summary": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "timeZone": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden: it states HTTP GET and that a JSON resource is returned, which implies a safe read. But it says nothing about auth/scopes, error behavior, or the odd mechanics it does describe (body_file, params merging) which don't apply to a bodyless GET. Behavior is implied rather than fully disclosed.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded, but the following clause about request bodies being built from typed parameters or read from body_file is boilerplate irrelevant to a GET and consumes most of the description. It wastes space and risks confusing the agent about whether this tool takes a body.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the read nature is clear. But the description spends its detail on misplaced body-handling mechanics instead of useful context for this specific read tool, leaving it only minimally complete.

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 all five parameters including calendarId and the generic query/params/dry_run/body_file wrappers. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond generic body-building mechanics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opening sentence 'Returns metadata for a calendar [HTTP GET]' gives a specific verb and resource and names the sibling mutations (clear, delete, insert, patch, transferOwnership, update). However, the rest of the sentence discusses request-body construction, which is irrelevant to a GET and muddies rather than sharpens the purpose. The read intent is nonetheless unmistakable.

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?

Listing the siblings implicitly signals this is the read variant opposed to the mutating ones, but no explicit 'use this when you need metadata, use calendarList.get for the list' guidance is given. The agent must infer the use case from the name plus the sibling roster. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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

Deploy Server