clio_calendars_listRetrieve the calendars and event types available to a signed-in Clio user. Use the IDs to create calendar entries.
Lists the calendars available to the signed-in user (ids for creating calendar entries) and the calendar entry event types.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0-beta.1Does 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 real behavioral context by disclosing what is returned (calendar IDs and event types), but says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or auth/permission scope. For a zero-param read tool the risk is low, but the disclosure is only partial.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, though the trailing parenthetical slightly interrupts the core 'lists calendars' statement. Everything present 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?
With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of naming the return contents (calendar IDs, event types). Combined with zero parameters and no annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though pagination and permission behavior remain unstated.
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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to compensate for. No parameter-level meaning is needed or missing.
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 ('Lists the calendars available to the signed-in user') and clarifies the payload's purpose (ids for creating calendar entries) plus the event-type enumeration. It is clearly a calendar-level listing, distinct from clio_calendar_entries_list, though it never names that sibling to sharpen the distinction.
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?
The parenthetical 'ids for creating calendar entries' implies the downstream use case (populate a calendar ID before calling clio_calendar_entry_create), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no routing to clio_calendar_entries_list for entry-level data. Usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.