Retrieve a complete list of Google calendars in your workspace to view and manage scheduling.
List all calendars
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"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the obvious read-only nature. Since no annotations exist, the description carries full burden, but it fails to mention safety (e.g., no side effects), rate limits, or required permissions.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no extraneous words, fully front-loading the tool's purpose.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description lacks completeness about return format (e.g., IDs, names) and context (e.g., linked to which account). The agent may be unable to process the response effectively.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, and the description adds the purpose 'List all calendars,' which provides meaning beyond the empty schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4, and the description justifiably earns that score.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('calendars'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_events or list_emails. However, it does not specify what type of calendars (e.g., Google Calendar) or any scoping, leaving slight ambiguity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_freebusy or list_events. There are no explicit when-not or precondition mentions, relying on the agent to infer from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.