List all calendars in an account with appointment counts; use page and per_page parameters to paginate results.
List all calendars in the account with appointment counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default 1) | |
| per_page | No | Results per page (default 50, max 200) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says what is listed and that appointment counts are included, but it omits permissions, ordering, pagination behavior, and return format details. It does not contradict any 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 wasted wording. It communicates the action and the notable output enrichment efficiently.
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, the schema fully covers pagination and the description gives a high-level return hint via appointment counts. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it could say more about what a calendar record contains or how pagination affects results.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both pagination parameters. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('calendars'), scopes it to the account, and mentions appointment counts. It does not explicitly differentiate from any sibling tool, but the resource is distinct from appointment-focused siblings such as conduyt_list_appointments.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives. Usage is only implied by 'List all calendars'; an agent must infer that this is the tool for browsing calendars.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.