google-workspace-alias-mcp

create_event

Create a Google Calendar event by specifying title, start/end times, location, attendees, and reminders.

Instructions

Create a calendar event

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "summary": "<summary>",
      "start": "<start>",
      "end": "<end>"
    },
    "name": "create_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`end`	Yes	End time (ISO format)
`start`	Yes	Start time (ISO format)
`summary`	Yes	Event title
`location`	No	Event location
`attendees`	No	List of attendee emails
`reminders`	No	Event reminders
`calendarId`	No	Calendar ID	primary
`description`	No	Event description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations. Description only says 'Create a calendar event', omitting side effects (e.g., notifications to attendees), required scopes, or default behaviors.

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?

Single sentence, no waste, but overly brief given tool complexity (8 params). Could provide more context without being verbose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Complex tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. Description fails to explain return value, error conditions, or how the event is created (e.g., calendar integration).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 8 parameters. Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Create a calendar event', matching the tool name. It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_event or delete_event, but doesn't elaborate on scope.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like update_event or search_events. No prerequisites or typical use cases mentioned.

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