get_eventFetch one event by id, with its full body, attendees, recurrence and online-meeting details.
Fetch one event by id, with its full body, attendees, recurrence and online-meeting details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Event id (from list_events). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the returned data: full body, attendees, recurrence, and online-meeting details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted language. It immediately states the action, scope, and key returned fields.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and a description listing the important returned fields, the definition is largely complete. Minor gaps remain around behavior for missing events, but nothing critical is omitted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the id parameter already documents that the value comes from list_events. The description adds only the phrase 'by id' and does not provide additional format or lookup semantics beyond what the schema supplies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: fetch one event by id. The singular scope and id reference clearly distinguish it from list_events and other calendar/list tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the correct usage context: retrieve a single event when an id is already known. It does not explicitly name list_events as the discovery alternative or state exclusions, so it is clear but not fully directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.