List events on a calendar within a specified time range, with optional text search to filter results.
List events on a calendar in a time range. Optional text search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | Yes | Range end. Datetime as YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS | |
| start | Yes | Range start. Datetime as YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS | |
| search | No | ||
| calendarId | Yes |
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 behavioral burden. "List" implies a non-destructive read, but nothing states result limits, ordering, pagination, or maximum range constraints, and no auth/permission requirements are mentioned.
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?
Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for a 4-parameter tool, but nothing in the text is filler.
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 annotations, no output schema, and only half the parameters described, the description should do far more: it omits what search actually matches, result ordering/limits, and pagination behavior. An agent can call it, but not predict the response shape or result scope.
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 50% (start/end documented with format, search/calendarId bare). The description loosely maps to the two undocumented concepts ("time range" for start/end, "Optional text search" for search) and confirms search is optional, but adds no match semantics (title vs description) or calendarId meaning.
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 ("List events on a calendar") plus the scoping dimension (time range), which is clear enough to separate it from calendar_create_event, calendar_update_event, and calendar_delete_event by verb alone. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with calendar_list_calendars, which an agent could confuse it with.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer it should call this when it needs events within a window, and "Optional text search" hints at the filtering mode. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.