calendars_listLists all imported calendars with their names, sources, event definition counts, and import dates.
Every calendar imported into this server: its name, where it came from, how many event definitions it holds and when it was imported.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.20.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavior disclosure burden. It is transparent about the operation's scope ('Every calendar imported into this server') and the exact data fields returned, which effectively communicates a read-only listing behavior. It does not spell out side effects or failure modes, but the verb 'List' and the descriptive sentence make the non-destructive nature evident.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the subject and scope, then lists the returned attributes. There is no redundancy, filler, or unnecessary detail; every part of the sentence contributes to the agent's understanding.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description covers the essential information needed to call it: what is listed, the scope, and the fields in the result. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or empty-result behavior, but those are minor for this simple metadata-listing tool and are not required by the input schema or annotations.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter-semantics burden on the description. The schema is fully coverage because there is no schema to explain. This meets the baseline 4 for a no-parameter tool.
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 title 'List imported calendars' states a specific verb and resource, and the description expands on it: it enumerates exactly what will be returned—name, source, event definition count, and import date. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like schedule_list or events_list, which concern schedules and events rather than calendar import metadata.
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: use this tool to inspect imported calendars on the server. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over alternatives, and it does not excludeevent or schedule listing tools. For a simple zero-parameter list tool this is acceptable, but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.