MCP Aruba Email & Calendar Server

by eteocuenca

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

accept_calendar_event

Accepts a calendar event invitation using its UID and optionally includes a comment to confirm attendance.

Instructions

Accept a calendar event invitation.

Args: event_uid: UID of the event to accept comment: Optional comment for the acceptance

Returns: Response status

Example: accept_calendar_event( event_uid="abc123@aruba.it", comment="Ci sarò!" )

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "event_uid": "<event_uid>"
    },
    "name": "accept_calendar_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`comment`	No
`event_uid`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does not meet it. It never says that accepting is a write/RSVP action that notifies the organizer, changes attendee status, requires attendee permissions, or whether it is reversible or repeatable; 'Returns: Response status' is the only behavioral hint.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by tightly scoped Args/Returns/Example sections with no filler. The example earns its place by demonstrating UID syntax and an optional comment.

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

Completeness3/5

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 needn't be explained, and both parameters are described. However, for a state-changing RSVP tool with zero annotation coverage, the missing disclosure of side effects and notification behavior leaves a meaningful gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains event_uid is the event's UID and comment is an optional message attached to the acceptance. The example ('abc123@aruba.it') usefully illustrates the UID format, though it doesn't clarify where the UID comes from (e.g., list_calendar_events).

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Accept a calendar event invitation.' The verb cleanly separates it from siblings such as decline_calendar_event, tentative_calendar_event, and delete_calendar_event, but it never names those siblings or the boundary between 'accept' and 'tentative' RSVP states.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this rather than decline/tentative, or on preconditions such as the caller being an invited attendee, the event still being upcoming, or whether an already-accepted event can be re-accepted. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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