Skip to main content
Glama
paulet4a-commits

WebDataTools Developer, app & research data MCP server

ical_calendar_extractor

Extract events from ICS or webcal calendar feeds as one row per event instance, expand recurring events within a date window, and convert times to UTC.

Instructions

iCal / ICS Calendar Feed to Events Extractor reads any ICS or webcal:// URL and returns one row per event instance, expanding RRULE recurring events within a date window, with times converted to UTC. Billed to your own Apify account: ~$0.0005 per result (Apify free-plan price, lower on paid plans).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoTo date — Only return event instances starting on or before this ISO date, e.g. 2026-12-31. Leave blank to default to 365 days after today. Example: "2026-12-31".
fromNoFrom date — Only return event instances starting on or after this ISO date, e.g. 2026-01-01. Leave blank to default to 30 days before today. Example: "2026-01-01".
feedsYesICS feed URLs — Enter the ICS/iCal feed URLs to read, e.g. https://www.officeholidays.com/ics/usa. A webcal:// URL is accepted too and automatically rewritten to https://. One row is returned per event instance found in the feed. Example: ["https://www.officeholidays.com/ics/usa"].
expandRecurringNoExpand recurring events — Keep this on to expand RRULE recurring events (e.g. a weekly meeting) into one row per occurrence inside the from/to window, capped at 500 instances per event. Turn it off to get a single row per recurring event at its original start time.
maxEventsPerFeedNoMax event rows per feed — Enter the maximum number of event-instance rows to keep per feed, e.g. 1000. The earliest instances within the window are kept first when a feed has more than this.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behaviour: RRULE expansion, UTC normalisation, one row per instance, and a per-result billing model tied to the caller's Apify account (~$0.0005/result). It does not mention rate limits, failure behaviour for malformed feeds, or auth requirements, but the cost and output-shape disclosure is genuinely useful beyond the schema.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and its output granularity, then cost. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the missing essentials: the row-per-instance return shape, recurrence expansion semantics, UTC conversion, and billing. Only failure modes and feed-validity prerequisites are absent, which is a minor gap for a read-only extraction tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including defaults, bounds and examples is already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description only restates the window/expansion behaviour at a high level and adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Names a specific verb+resource ('ICS Calendar Feed to Events Extractor reads any ICS or webcal:// URL and returns one row per event instance') and states the transformation performed. Nothing in the sibling list overlaps, so the agent can route to it unambiguously.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It implies the usage context (reading ICS/webcal feeds) but never states when to use it versus alternatives, nor any when-not conditions or prerequisites such as needing a valid public feed URL. For a tool with no near-neighbours this is adequate but leaves the trigger condition implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.