Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gcal-mcp

gcal-mcp

by spokoistvie-cyber
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

list_calendars

Retrieves Google Calendar IDs, names, and access rights so you can identify the correct calendar before reading or managing its events.

Instructions

Календари аккаунта: id, название, права. Нужно, чтобы узнать ID перед чтением чужого календаря.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_calendars"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the returned fields (including permissions) and hints that results extend to calendars not owned by the caller ("чужого календаря"), but it never states that this is a read-only operation, what access level is required, or whether results are paginated or limited to owned/subscribed calendars.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second supplies the motivating use case. No filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential gap by enumerating the returned fields. It stops short of saying whether results cover only owned calendars or also shared/subscribed ones, which matters given the "чужого календаря" framing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter text and instead spends its words on what comes back.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource ("Календари аккаунта") and the exact fields returned (id, название, права), so an agent knows it is a calendar-level listing, distinct from the event-level siblings. The verb is only implied by the noun phrase, which keeps it from a 5, but the resource and payload are unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states a concrete use case: call this to obtain a calendar ID before reading somebody else's calendar. That is clear positive guidance, though it names no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions (the sibling set contains no other calendar-listing tool, so there is little to exclude).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools