Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
icloud-calendar-mcp

icloud-calendar-mcp

by hrsather
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

list_calendars

Lists all iCloud calendars that can hold events, returning each calendar's ID and name so you can target the right calendar for reading, creating, or updating events.

Instructions

List the calendars that can hold events, with their id and name.

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": "list_calendars"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about permissions, whether hidden/read-only/holiday or secondary calendars are included, or how the 'can hold events' filter is applied. The one generated clue is that non-event calendars appear to be excluded, but that ambiguity cuts both ways for an agent deciding if the list is complete.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier comes before the returned fields, and every clause adds information.

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 tool with an output schema already documenting the return shape, the description covers purpose and returned fields adequately. The only residue is the ambiguous inclusion criteria for which calendars are listed.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema; baseline is 4.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('calendars'), and adds a qualifying scope ('that can hold events') plus the returned fields (id, name). It is clearly distinguishable from the event-centric siblings, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before create_event or list_events, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools