Retrieve calendar events from now through the next N days, with optional full event descriptions.
List events from now through the next N days.
Args: days: How many days ahead to include (1-90). Default 7. include_description: Include the full event body text. Default False.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| include_description | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it only partially delivers: it discloses the day-range bound (1-90) and the meaning of include_description, which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It says nothing about ordering, pagination, or permissions, though a read-only listing tool is low risk.
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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence and the Args block is tight, with no filler. The raw docstring 'Args:' formatting is slightly informal for a description but costs little.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and both parameters are fully documented for a two-param list tool. The remaining gap is sibling routing rather than anything needed to invoke it correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% (only titles, no descriptions), so the description must compensate and it does: it defines days as a look-ahead window bounded 1-90 with default 7, and include_description as pulling the full event body with default False. Both parameters gain full meaning absent from the schema.
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 (List) and resource (events) with a clear scope: 'from now through the next N days'. It does not differentiate from siblings like list_today or list_events, which overlap in scope, so an agent still has to guess which to pick.
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 description implies a forward-looking range but never says when to use this over list_events, list_today, or search_events. No alternatives or exclusions are named, leaving routing entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.