Accept, decline, or tentatively accept a calendar invitation and send the RSVP update to the organizer. Use it to respond to event invites by event ID with an optional comment.
Accept, decline, or tentatively accept an invitation. This sends the RSVP update to the organizer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| comment | No | ||
| event_id | Yes | ||
| response | Yes | ||
| calendar_id | No | Calendar ID; defaults to primary |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose that an RSVP is transmitted to the organizer, a real side effect beyond a local write, but says nothing about permissions, visibility of the optional comment, or whether re-responding overwrites a prior response.
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 with the action and its consequence front-loaded; every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the agent must rely on the description for behavior, and it omits what the call returns, whether a comment accompanies the RSVP, and what the required response values mean in context. Incomplete for a 4-parameter mutation tool.
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 only 25%; only calendar_id is documented. The description adds no meaning for event_id, the response enum, or the optional comment field (e.g. whether the comment is sent to the organizer), so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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?
A specific verb set (accept/decline/tentative) applied to an invitation, plus the side effect of sending the RSVP to the organizer. This clearly separates it from the generic update_event sibling, though it never names the resource as 'event' explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by 'invitation' and the RSVP framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g. must be an invitee), and no routing against update_event or delete_event.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.