Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Microsoft Graph MCP Server

Microsoft Graph MCP Server

by oliverhruby
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

get_schedule

Check free/busy availability for specified email accounts over a date range, with configurable interval minutes for schedule detail.

Instructions

Get free/busy schedule. availability_views: semicolon-separated email addresses.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "availability_views": "<availability_views>",
      "start_date": "<start_date>",
      "end_date": "<end_date>"
    },
    "name": "get_schedule"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
end_dateYes
start_dateYes
interval_minutesNo
availability_viewsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description should carry the burden of behavioral transparency. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' but does not explicitly state permissions, side effects, or output details. It is not misleading but is minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The added note about availability_views is helpful, though the structure is minimal and not broken into sections.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has four parameters and no output schema, but the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not mention what the schedule output looks like, expected date formats, or any constraints, making it inadequate for full context.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description only clarifies availability_views as 'semicolon-separated email addresses'. It does not explain start_date, end_date, or interval_minutes, leaving most parameters underdocumented given the 0% schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get free/busy schedule' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource, but it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like find_meeting_times or list_events_in_range.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of appropriate contexts, exclusions, or comparisons to other calendar-related tools.

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