notion-calendar-mcp

get_synchronized_calendars

Read-only

List synchronized calendars between accounts to verify mirrored connections and inspect calendar sync links.

Instructions

List synchronized/mirrored calendars. Call when inspecting Calendar sync links between accounts. POST /v2/getSynchronizedCalendars {}. Name first.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_synchronized_calendars"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already flags this as a safe read operation, and the description is consistent with that. It adds useful context by stating the endpoint ('POST /v2/getSynchronizedCalendars {}') and clarifying that the operation concerns synchronized/mirrored calendars, not general calendars.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The first two sentences are efficient and front-loaded, but the endpoint line mostly repeats the tool name and the cryptic 'Name first' fragment adds confusion rather than clarity. Some content could be trimmed or clarified.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description covers what it lists and when to call it. There is no output schema, but the lack of a detailed return-format explanation is a minor gap given the simplicity of the operation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add. The description even shows the empty request body, which is sufficient. The baseline for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 ('List') and resource ('synchronized/mirrored calendars'), and adds the context of 'sync links between accounts.' It is not as strong as explicitly naming a sibling alternative, but the meaning is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says 'Call when inspecting Calendar sync links between accounts,' providing a clear trigger condition. It does not discuss when not to use it or name an alternative, but the usage context is specific enough for an agent to route correctly among the many get_* siblings.

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