Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

calendar.freebusy.query

Checks free/busy availability for specified calendars within a time range, returning JSON results to help schedule meetings without conflicts.

Instructions

Returns free/busy information for a set of calendars [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 FreeBusyRequest object accepting calendarExpansionMax, groupExpansionMax, items, timeMax, timeMin, timeZone; 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 FreeBusyRequest object.
request_bodyNoRequest body of type FreeBusyRequest: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNo
groupsNo
timeMaxNo
timeMinNo
calendarsNo

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 FreeBusyRequest object."
    • addedInput schema / properties / request_body
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Request body of type FreeBusyRequest: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.",
+  "properties": {
+    "calendarExpansionMax": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "groupExpansionMax": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "items": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "timeMax": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "timeMin": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "timeZone": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "calendars": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "groups": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "kind": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "timeMax": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "timeMin": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses important traits: the operation uses HTTP POST, is treated as creating or triggering a change, and is refused under --readonly profiles. It also says the response is returned as JSON, though it does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded, followed by the important POST/read-only behavior and request-body details. The description is dense but not rambling; minor schema-duplicated body-field detail prevents a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, and it adequately explains the request body and safety-profile behavior. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though auth and failure modes are not discussed.

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 the five parameters and nested request body fields. The description repeats the accepted FreeBusyRequest fields and the params/body_file passing mechanism, but adds little semantic meaning beyond the schema baseline.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it returns free/busy information for a set of calendars. The tool name and the stated purpose make it distinguishable from event-listing siblings without needing to inspect the 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?

The description implies its use case (checking availability for calendars) and notes that it is refused under --readonly safety profiles. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives such as calendar.events.list or explain when an agent should choose one over the other.

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