Retrieve calendar events from Google Calendar. Filter by time range in RFC3339 format or by text search to find specific events.
Get calendar events. Filter by time range (RFC3339 format) and/or text search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | ||
| time_max | No | ||
| time_min | No | ||
| calendar_id | No | primary | |
| max_results | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It communicates the filtering behavior and RFC3339 time format, but does not mention default calendar behavior, result limits, or interaction of filters. These are minor gaps for a read-only operation.
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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then filter options. There is no unnecessary content or repetition.
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?
The description covers the core retrieval and filter functionality but lacks important context about default calendar ID, max_results behavior, and how filters combine. An output schema exists, but the description could still be more complete for a tool with five parameters.
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?
The input schema provides zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains time range (RFC3339) and text search, which clarifies time_min, time_max, and query. However, calendar_id and max_results are left unexplained, leaving a partial gap.
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 clearly states the tool's function with the verb 'Get' and resource 'calendar events', and specifies filtering by time range and text search. This distinguishes it from siblings like calendar_create_event and calendar_list_calendars.
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 implies usage for retrieving calendar events with optional filters, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over similar read tools like calendar_freebusy or calendar_list_recurring_instances. No alternatives or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.