notion-calendar-mcp

get_user_preferences

Read-only

Retrieve calendar user preferences (working hours, defaults) and their etag. Use it before updating preferences to get the version required for a valid update.

Instructions

Read Calendar user preferences (working hours, defaults, etag). Call before update_user_preferences (etag required for force check). POST /v2/getUserPreferences {}.

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_user_preferences"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming what data is read (working hours, defaults, etag) and by explaining the etag's role in a subsequent update. It does not describe response shape or error behavior, but this is acceptable for a simple no-argument read with strong annotations.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then gives the usage relationship, and ends with the endpoint. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with safety annotations already provided, the description is complete. It identifies the resource, the relevant data fields, the dependency on update_user_preferences, and the endpoint. An agent has enough to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces the empty call via 'POST /v2/getUserPreferences {}', but there are no parameter semantics to explain beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with a specific verb 'Read' and clearly identifies the resource: 'Calendar user preferences'. It also lists representative contents (working hours, defaults, etag), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user, get_calendars, or update_user_preferences.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use it: 'Call before update_user_preferences', and explains that the etag is required for the force check. This gives an agent a concrete workflow and removes ambiguity about the intended call order.

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