Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Google Workspace MCP Server - Control Gmail, Calendar, Docs, Sheets, Slides, Chat, Forms & Drive

Google Workspace MCP Server - Control Gmail, Calendar, Docs, Sheets, Slides, Chat, Forms & Drive

by taylorwilsdon
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Manage Calendar

manage_calendar
Destructive

Create secondary Google Calendars and manage sharing permissions, including listing, granting, updating, and removing access rules for users, groups, domains, or public access.

Instructions

Creates secondary Google Calendars and manages who a calendar is shared with (its access control rules).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "user_google_email": "<user_google_email>",
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "manage_calendar"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roleNoAccess level for "share" and "update_sharing". One of: "freeBusyReader", "reader", "writerWithoutPrivateAccess", "writer", "owner", "none".
actionYesAction to perform. One of: - "create": Create a new secondary calendar. Uses summary, description, timezone. - "list_sharing": List the calendar's sharing rules. Uses calendar_id, page_token. - "share": Grant access to the calendar. Uses calendar_id, role, scope_type, scope_value, send_notifications. - "update_sharing": Change the role of an existing rule. Uses calendar_id, rule_id, role, send_notifications. - "unshare": Remove an existing rule. Uses calendar_id, rule_id.
rule_idNoRule ID from "list_sharing" (e.g. "user:alice@example.com"). Required for "update_sharing" and "unshare".
summaryNoThe title/name of the new calendar. Required for "create".
timezoneNoIANA timezone for the new calendar (e.g. 'America/New_York'). Used by "create".
page_tokenNoFor "list_sharing" action: token for the next page, taken from a previous response.
scope_typeNoWho "share" grants access to: "user", "group", "domain", or "default" (public). Defaults to "user".user
calendar_idNoCalendar ID for the sharing actions. Defaults to 'primary'.primary
descriptionNoAn optional description for the new calendar. Used by "create".
scope_valueNoEmail address for "user"/"group" or domain name for "domain". Required for "share" unless scope_type is "default".
user_google_emailYesThe user's Google email address. Required.
send_notificationsNoWhether to email the grantee on "share" and "update_sharing". Defaults to True.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.4.2

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description confirms the write capabilities defined by the annotations (e.g., 'Creates' and 'manages'). However, it does not disclose any critical behavioral constraints, rate limits, or specific failure modes beyond what the hints already cover.

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?

The description is highly efficient, utilizing a single sentence to capture the full scope of the tool without unnecessary jargon or filler. It is maximally front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the high parameter count (12) and the multi-step nature of the available actions (e.g., list -> share -> update), the description is too high-level. A brief context regarding the primary workflow or limitations would increase completeness.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Since the schema coverage is 100%, the description's primary value is contextual rather than semantic. It successfully frames the various parameters within the overall goals of creation and sharing, achieving the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly defines two major capabilities: creating new secondary calendars and managing existing calendar access control rules. It avoids generic naming and focuses on the core resource and actions.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description offers minimal guidance on when to use this tool versus others. It simply states what the tool does, forcing the agent to use the complex internal `action` enum in the schema to determine the appropriate use case.

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