Skip to main content
Glama

check_availability

Verify calendar availability for scheduling meetings by providing account ID, start and end times, and optional attendees, powered by Microsoft MCP server.

Instructions

Check calendar availability for scheduling

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
account_idYes
attendeesNo
endYes
startYes

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function implementing the check_availability tool. It uses the Microsoft Graph API to query calendar availability for the account and optional attendees within the specified time range.
    @mcp.tool
    def check_availability(
        account_id: str,
        start: str,
        end: str,
        attendees: str | list[str] | None = None,
    ) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Check calendar availability for scheduling"""
        me_info = graph.request("GET", "/me", account_id)
        if not me_info or "mail" not in me_info:
            raise ValueError("Failed to get user email address")
        schedules = [me_info["mail"]]
        if attendees:
            attendees_list = [attendees] if isinstance(attendees, str) else attendees
            schedules.extend(attendees_list)
    
        payload = {
            "schedules": schedules,
            "startTime": {"dateTime": start, "timeZone": "UTC"},
            "endTime": {"dateTime": end, "timeZone": "UTC"},
            "availabilityViewInterval": 30,
        }
    
        result = graph.request("POST", "/me/calendar/getSchedule", account_id, json=payload)
        if not result:
            raise ValueError("Failed to check availability")
        return result
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Check calendar availability' implies a read operation, but doesn't specify what format the availability information is returned in, whether it respects privacy settings, if it requires specific permissions, or how it handles time zones. The description lacks details about the tool's behavior beyond the basic purpose.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise at just 5 words, front-loading the core purpose without any unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse while conveying the essential function. The structure is optimal for such a straightforward tool purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 4 parameters (3 required), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to interpret results, what the parameters mean, or any behavioral constraints. The description provides only basic purpose without the necessary context for effective use.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage for all 4 parameters, the description provides no information about what 'account_id', 'attendees', 'start', or 'end' represent. The description doesn't explain that 'account_id' identifies whose calendar to check, that 'attendees' can be individuals or groups to include in availability calculations, or that 'start' and 'end' define the time range to check. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the verb ('check') and resource ('calendar availability for scheduling'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from siblings like 'list_events' or 'search_events' which might also involve calendar data, but the focus on 'availability for scheduling' provides reasonable distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_events', 'search_events', and 'respond_event' that also interact with calendar data, there's no indication whether this tool is for finding free slots, checking busy times, or other availability-related functions. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/elyxlz/microsoft-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server