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

mail-calendar-mcp

by mathewcsims
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

calendar_list_attendees

Read-onlyIdempotent

List attendees for a calendar event. Organizer self appears as null email entry (isLikelyOrganizerSelf).

Instructions

List attendees on an event. Note: once any attendee is added to an event you organize, an extra entry with a null email (the organizer/self) commonly appears — flagged as isLikelyOrganizerSelf, not a bug.

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": {
      "uid": "<uid>"
    },
    "name": "calendar_list_attendees"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uidYes
calendarNameNoCalendar name. Ambiguous if duplicated (common on multi-account setups) — use calendarIndex instead in that case.
calendarIndexNoPosition from calendar_list_calendars, for disambiguating duplicate calendar names. Stable only for the current Calendar.app process.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate it's read-only and idempotent. The description adds a useful behavioral note about the null email entry for the organizer, which goes beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, no wasted words. The note is appended as a second sentence, which is efficient.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no output schema, the description does not explain the return format or fields. It covers purpose and one behavioral caveat but lacks completeness for an agent, such as what the output looks like or that it returns a list of attendee objects.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond the schema. Schema coverage is 67%, but the description rehashes no parameter descriptions. The note about null email is not about a parameter but about result behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('attendees on an event'). It is concise and unambiguous, with no sibling tool that performs the same function.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the context is implied: when you need to see attendees of an event. No guidance on when not to use it.

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