Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

calendar.channels.stop

Stops watching resources through an existing Calendar channel, ending push notifications for that channel. Use it to cancel a webhook subscription when updates are no longer needed.

Instructions

Stop watching resources through this channel [HTTP POST] — creates or triggers a change; refused under --readonly safety profiles. Returns the API's response resource as JSON — request body is a JSON Channel object accepting address, expiration, id, kind, params, payload, resourceId, resourceUri and 2 more fields; pass it via params or whole via body_file

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoExtra KEY=VALUE query pairs for endpoints whose parameters Discovery does not describe.
paramsNoParameter map merged into the request; typed parameters win.
dry_runNoReturn the request that would be sent, without sending it.
body_fileNoRead the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters. The body is a JSON Channel object.
request_bodyNoRequest body of type Channel: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • 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 Channel object."
    • addedInput schema / properties / request_body
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Request body of type Channel: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.",
+  "properties": {
+    "address": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "expiration": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "kind": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "params": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "payload": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "resourceId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "resourceUri": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "token": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the load and mostly does: it discloses the HTTP method, that the call is a mutation that will be refused in read-only safety profiles, and that a response resource is returned as JSON. What it omits is the effect on the underlying watch (does the channel expire immediately, is the call idempotent if the channel is already gone).

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, which is correct, but the rest is a single run-on construction of em-dash clauses mixing HTTP verb trivia, safety-profile behavior, response format and body plumbing. '[HTTP POST]' and 'accepting ... and 2 more fields' are low-value filler that could be cut or restructured into short sentences.

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?

For a five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, that it is a write that safety profiles can block, how the body is supplied, and what comes back. Only the post-condition of stopping a channel and error behavior for an unknown channel id are missing.

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 baseline is 3, and the description does add the routing distinction between `params` (merged) and `body_file` (whole body) plus an enumeration of Channel fields. However, the field list merely echoes the request_body properties already present in the schema, so the added meaning is marginal.

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?

States a specific verb and resource – 'Stop watching resources through this channel' – which is distinct from the watch-creating siblings like calendar.events.watch and calendar.acl.watch. It falls short of a 5 because it never names the counterpart operation that created the channel, and the appended 'creates or triggers a change' phrase muddies the purpose of what is fundamentally a teardown operation.

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 one piece of guidance is operational rather than selective: 'refused under --readonly safety profiles' tells the agent when the call will be blocked. There is no statement of when to call this versus leaving a channel to expire, nor any mention of the sibling watch tools whose channels this terminates.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools