get_calendarsList calendars by account or source, then use names or IDs to filter events for a specific calendar.
List the user's calendars, grouped by account/source.
Use the names or IDs with get_calendar_events to filter by calendar.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fulcra_userid | No | List calendars of another Fulcra user (if shared) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context that results are grouped by account/source, but does not mention auth requirements or the cross-user sharing behavior implied by fulcra_userid. Adequate but not rich beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with zero filler; the primary purpose is front-loaded and the workflow hint follows. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 the description covers purpose plus the key sibling relationship. The only gap is not surfacing the optional cross-user listing use case in prose, though the schema covers it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the single optional fulcra_userid parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its cross-user sharing semantics. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is correct.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('List the user's calendars') and adds scope detail ('grouped by account/source') that differentiates it from the sibling get_calendar_events, which is named explicitly. An agent can tell what this returns without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a concrete downstream workflow: use the names or IDs with get_calendar_events to filter by calendar, which names the sibling and the reason to call this first. It does not give explicit when-not conditions (e.g., when to skip this and query events directly), so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.