Schedule a calendar event by entering calendar ID, title, start/end datetimes, and optional location, timezone, recurrence, or description.
Create an event on a calendar.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endAt | Yes | Datetime as YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS | |
| title | Yes | ||
| startAt | Yes | Datetime as YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS | |
| isAllDay | No | ||
| location | No | ||
| timezone | No | IANA name, e.g. Asia/Kolkata | |
| calendarId | Yes | ||
| recurrence | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about required permissions, notification/side effects, recurrence behavior, timezone defaults, or idempotency. Only the word 'Create' hints that this is a mutation.
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 waste, but it is too thin for a 9-parameter mutation tool with a nested recurrence object. Brevity here reads as under-specification rather than discipline.
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 9 parameters, a nested recurrence object, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is far too incomplete. It leaves timezone handling, recurrence semantics, and return behavior entirely to inference.
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 only 33% (title, location, isAllDay, calendarId, description are undocumented), and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. It fails to compensate for the low coverage.
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 (Create) and resource (event on a calendar), so an agent can tell what it does without opening the schema. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like calendar_update_event or calendar_delete_event beyond the implicit verb.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative calendar_update_event or calendar_list_events. The agent gets zero routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.