Add a Google Calendar event without attendees, using ISO 8601 timestamps with UTC offsets or all-day dates with an exclusive end date.
Create a Google Calendar event with no attendees. Timed values need an ISO 8601 UTC offset; all-day values use YYYY-MM-DD and an exclusive end date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | Yes | ||
| start | Yes | ||
| all_day | No | ||
| summary | Yes | ||
| location | No | ||
| calendar_id | No | Calendar ID; defaults to primary | |
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the no-attendees limitation and date-formatting behavior, including exclusive all-day end dates, but it does not cover permissions, side effects, response behavior, or what happens with existing events.
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 tightly written sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the important formatting constraints.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough formatting detail to invoke it correctly, but it leaves gaps around permissions, side effects, error behavior, and return values. It is adequate but not fully complete.
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 low at 14%, and the description compensates by clarifying the non-obvious semantics of start/end and all-day event handling. However, it does not explain other parameters such as summary, location, description, or calendar_id beyond what their names or the schema already convey.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Google Calendar event'. It also states a key scope constraint, 'with no attendees', which makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from calendar read/update/delete siblings.
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 'with no attendees' implies when the tool is appropriate and when it is not, but there is no explicit guidance to choose between this and alternatives such as update_event or respond_to_event. Usage is implied rather than fully spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.