Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

calendar.settings.get

Retrieves a specific Google Calendar user setting by its ID and returns it as JSON, so you can inspect configuration values.

Instructions

Returns a single user setting [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: list, watch.

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.
settingYes[URL path segment] The id of the user setting.
body_fileNoRead the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
etagNo
kindNo
valueNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / setting / description
      Previous value: -"The id of the user setting."New value: +"[URL path segment] The id of the user setting."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "etag": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "kind": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "value": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the HTTP GET semantics, which tells the agent this is a non-mutating read. However, it says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior for an unknown setting id, or rate limits, and the 'request bodies are built from the typed parameters … or read whole from body_file' boilerplate is misplaced for a GET that has no body, which risks confusing the agent.

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 in the first clause, and the sibling list is tacked on efficiently at the end. The middle sentence about request-body construction is generic filler that does not apply to a GET and dilutes an otherwise compact definition.

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 return values need not be explained, and the 100%-covered input schema documents the parameters. The core gap is that nothing explains what a user setting is or what determines a valid setting id, but for a simple singular-read tool the definition is broadly sufficient.

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 every parameter (setting, query, params, dry_run, body_file) is already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds no meaning beyond that — it never explains what a 'setting' identifier looks like or which keys are commonly read.

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: 'Returns a single user setting,' and tags it as an HTTP GET. It then names the sibling operations over the same resource (list, watch), so an agent can distinguish the singular-fetch case from the enumeration case without opening a schema. The second sentence drifts into generic request-plumbing boilerplate that adds nothing to purpose.

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?

Naming the siblings 'list, watch' implicitly signals the alternative enumeration tools, so an agent can infer 'use list when you want all settings.' But it never states the selection rule explicitly (when to choose get vs list) nor any prerequisites such as which setting ids exist or are valid.

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