ghl_list_calendarsRetrieves all calendars for a specified location using the location ID.
Get all calendars for the location.
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": "ghl_list_calendars"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locationId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and negligible destructiveness. The description adds the location-scoping context, which is useful, but does not disclose pagination behavior, response format, or any other operational details 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It directly states the action and object, matching the title and making efficient use of space.
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?
For a simple list tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate. It covers the core action and scope, but could clarify what happens when locationId is omitted, though the low complexity makes this a minor gap.
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 description coverage is 0% for the single locationId parameter, so the description must compensate. It does not mention locationId at all, nor its optionality, format, or behavior when omitted, leaving the parameter meaning entirely unexplained.
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?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with resource 'all calendars' and location scope, clearly conveying a list operation. It distinguishes from siblings like ghl_get_calendar (singular) and ghl_create_calendar by stating 'all calendars'.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ghl_get_calendar or ghl_create_calendar. The purpose is implied but not explicitly differentiated, and there are no exclusions or conditional recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.