Fetch all events for the current week or a future week, grouped by day. Set week_offset to 0 for this week, 1 for next, and so on.
Get all events for the current week or a future week. Shows events grouped by day.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| week_offset | No | 0 = this week, 1 = next week, 2 = week after, etc. (default 0) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses only that results are grouped by day. It does not state whether all calendars are included, how the week boundary/timezone is defined, or that the operation is read-only and side-effect free.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the output shape; nothing is wasted. It is near-minimal, though it leaves room for a brief routing hint at no real length cost.
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-optional-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description plus schema covers what an agent needs to invoke it. Remaining gaps (calendar selection, week-boundary definition) are minor for this complexity level.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's offset semantics are fully documented in the schema ('0 = this week, 1 = next week'). The description's 'current week or a future week' corroborates that negative offsets are not intended but adds no syntax or format detail beyond that.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get all events') with a clear scope ('current week or a future week'), which lets an agent separate it from date-range siblings like calendar_date and calendar_search. It does not explicitly name the sibling it competes with, so it falls short of a 5.
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 phrase 'current week or a future week' implicitly tells the agent this is the week-granularity view rather than a date-range or upcoming-N-events view, but no alternative tool is named and no exclusions are given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.