Retrieve a specific calendar entry by its ID to get details about a scheduled episode or event. Use this to look up individual calendar items when you know the ID.
Read Calendar.
GET /api/v3/calendar/{id}
Args: id: Path parameter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description only adds the HTTP method and endpoint, which are routing details rather than behavioral traits like error handling, auth, or rate limits.
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 very short and front-loaded with "Read Calendar," followed by the endpoint and args. There is no fluff, though the endpoint line partially duplicates information inferable from the tool name. Overall, it is efficient.
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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. However, it lacks usage context and alternative routing, which matters given the large sibling list. It is adequate but has clear gaps.
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%, so the description must compensate. It merely notes "id: Path parameter," which is also visible in the endpoint; it does not explain that the id refers to a calendar identifier beyond what the tool name implies.
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?
"Read Calendar" is a clear verb+resource statement, and the GET endpoint with {id} makes it evident this fetches a single calendar by id. It is distinguishable from list_calendar by the singular resource and tool name, though it does not explicitly mention any sibling differentiation.
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 given on when to use this tool versus list_calendar or other get-by-id siblings. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and the id parameter; there is no explicit when/when-not or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.