Retrieve an employee's calendar events between two inclusive ISO dates to verify travel dates and support expense claim audits.
Get an employee's calendar events between two ISO dates (inclusive).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date_to | Yes | ||
| date_from | Yes | ||
| employee_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add genuine behavioral detail beyond the schema — ISO date format and an explicit inclusive boundary — which prevents off-by-one range errors. However it is silent on permission requirements, timezone handling, pagination, and what an empty range returns, all of which matter for a calendar read with zero annotation coverage.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource before the range constraint. Every clause (ISO, inclusive) carries information the agent needs.
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?
For a three-parameter read tool with an output schema already documenting return shape, the description covers all inputs and the key range semantics. Remaining gaps are permission/prerequisite context and timezone assumptions, which are minor for this complexity level.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: 'an employee's calendar events' maps to employee_id, 'between two ISO dates' maps to date_from/date_to, and 'exclusive/inclusive' clarifies the boundary semantics that the schema leaves undefined. Only the expected string format (e.g. YYYY-MM-DD) is still left implicit.
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?
Names a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('an employee's calendar events'), and the scope ('between two ISO dates, inclusive'). An agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not distinguish itself from any sibling, though no sibling covers calendars, so ambiguity risk is low.
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?
Usage is implied by the resource — an agent needing an employee's schedule would select it — but the description gives no explicit when-to-use condition, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives among the claim/policy/inbox siblings it might be confused with during a workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.