Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
meetergo MCP server

meetergo MCP server

Official
by meetergo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List calendar connections

list_calendar_connections
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check connected calendars from Google, Outlook, and CalDAV to verify host calendar attachment and diagnose availability issues.

Instructions

List connected calendars (Google, Outlook and CalDAV). The result shows whether a host has a calendar attached and supports availability diagnosis.

Tool call template

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_calendar_connections"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoThe results, when the API paginates
pageNoCurrent page, when the API paginates
itemsNoThe results, when the API returns a plain list
totalNoTotal matches, when the API paginates

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.25
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Calendar accounts connected to the user",
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "items": {
+            "$ref": "#/properties/items/anyOf/0/items"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "description": "The results, when the API paginates"
+    },
+    "items": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "items": {
+            "additionalProperties": true,
+            "description": "A connected calendar account",
+            "properties": {
+              "email": {
+                "$ref": "#/properties/items/anyOf/0/items/properties/id"
+              },
+              "id": {
+                "type": [
+                  "string",
+                  "null"
+                ]
+              },
+              "provider": {
+                "$ref": "#/properties/items/anyOf/0/items/properties/id",
+                "description": "google, microsoft, caldav …"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "description": "The results, when the API returns a plain list"
+    },
+    "page": {
+      "description": "Current page, when the API paginates"
+    },
+    "total": {
+      "description": "Total matches, when the API paginates"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the result shows whether a host has a calendar attached and supports availability diagnosis, going beyond the 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 short sentences with no filler. The action and resource appear first, followed by provider detail and practical value, making it easy to parse.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple, zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete. It states what is listed, which providers are covered, and what the result can be used for, leaving no meaningful gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters and the schema covers 100% of them automatically, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and names the resource 'connected calendars' with concrete providers (Google, Outlook, CalDAV). It clearly distinguishes this tool from appointment, contact, and webhook siblings in the group.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It says the result 'supports availability diagnosis,' providing a clear use case for when the output matters. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, though no close sibling exists for this task.

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