macos-apps-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_event

Creates calendar events with start/end times, recurrence rules, alarms, location, notes, and all-day support, targeting a named or pointer calendar through EventKit.

Instructions

Create an event. start/end ISO datetime — naive = local time, call now() first; recurrence an RRULE with FREQ, INTERVAL, COUNT, UNTIL, BYDAY (ordinals such as 2TU or -1FR for monthly and yearly), BYMONTHDAY, BYMONTH, BYYEARDAY, BYSETPOS; BYWEEKNO, BYHOUR, BYMINUTE, BYSECOND and WKST are refused. all_day takes a DATE (2026-07-01); a timestamp with a UTC offset is rejected. A start that does not match its recurrence is accepted (RFC 5545 counts it as the first occurrence) and the result's summary says so. alarms are minutes before the start, as in the Google Calendar API. For an all-day event the offset counts from local midnight: -540 is 09:00 on the day, 900 is 09:00 the day before. On a DST-change day the alert shifts an hour, the same as Calendar's own alerts. At most 5. Side effect (creates); needs EventKit (Calendar) access. Target a calendar via calendar — a calendar name OR a calendar Pointer id (from calendars). An ambiguous name is refused (with the candidate ids listed), never guessed.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`end`	Yes
`notes`	No
`start`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`alarms`	No
`all_day`	No
`calendar`	No
`location`	No
`recurrence`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.15.1Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: it creates an event, requires EventKit/Calendar access, refuses ambiguous calendar names, rejects certain RRULE parts, rejects timestamp offsets for all_day, caps alarms at 5, and explains DST and recurrence-mismatch 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 description is front-loaded with its core purpose and then packs in necessary edge-case detail. It is dense and somewhat run-on, but nearly every sentence adds useful invocation or validation information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the lack of schema descriptions, and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers creation, auth needs, calendar targeting, recurrence constraints, and alarm semantics. Minor gaps remain around simple fields like notes and location.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage across 9 parameters, the description carries most of the semantic burden. It thoroughly explains the complex parameters start/end, recurrence, all_day, alarms, and calendar, though it does not explicitly mention notes, location, or title beyond their self-evident meanings.

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 description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create an event.' That clearly identifies the operation. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as update_event or events, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives operational guidance such as calling now() first for naive datetimes and targeting a calendar via name or Pointer id. However, it does not explicitly state when to use create_event versus update_event, delete_event, or events. Usage is therefore implied more than fully guided.

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

Deploy Server