Skip to main content
Glama
theluckystrike

mcp-office-suite

by theluckystrike
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Write a calendar invite

ics_create

Create a .ics calendar file for one meeting using title, start, time zone, and duration; returns the file path plus UTC and local start times so invites land correctly.

Instructions

Call this tool to write a .ics for one meeting and return the path plus the start in UTC and in your zone. Times are stored in UTC so it lands correctly in any client. Free: 3 files a month.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gapNoWhat to do with a time that does not exist because the clocks jumped forward: 'forward' takes the time after the jump, 'backward' the time before it. Without this, such a time is refused.
foldNoWhich occurrence of a time that happens twice because the clocks went back. Default 'first'.
zoneYesPlace the start time is given in
startYesStart time, read in `zone` unless it carries an offset
titleYesEvent title
locationNoWhere, or a meeting link
out_pathNoWhere to write the .ics file; default meeting.ics in the data dir. Times are stored in UTC, so the invite lands at the right local time in every attendee's calendar with no time zone block to go stale
attendeesNoAttendees. An entry with an email is invited (ATTENDEE:mailto:...); a name with no email is listed in the description instead, because a calendar cannot invite a name.
descriptionNoBody text
organizer_nameNoYour display name for the ORGANIZER line
organizer_emailNoYour email address, written as the ORGANIZER so replies have somewhere to go. Leave it out and your shared business profile's email is used; with neither, the ORGANIZER line is omitted rather than filled with an address you improvised
duration_minutesYesLength in minutes, at most 1440

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.20.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false), so the description's job is to add context it does not already carry. It does: it discloses a rate limit ("Free: 3 files a month") and the return payload (path, start in UTC and in the caller's zone), plus the UTC-storage rationale. It omits whether writing to an existing out_path overwrites, which is the one remaining behavioral gap.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and result, and the quota note is compact. Nothing is padded, though "Call this tool to" is a slightly wasteful opener.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating the return values, which many definitions would omit. It also flags the quota. For a 12-parameter, non-idempotent write tool it is close to complete; the missing piece is overwrite/conflict behavior on out_path.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter — including the tricky gap/fold DST cases and the attendee/email distinction — is already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces zone/UTC semantics and adds no new parameter syntax or constraints, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a concrete verb+resource pair ("write a .ics for one meeting") and scopes it to a single meeting, which separates it from batch/import siblings like ics_import. It also states what comes back (the path plus start times), so the agent knows what the call produces. It stops short of naming any sibling it is the alternative to, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

"Call this tool to write a .ics for one meeting" implies the usage context and the single-meeting boundary hints that bulk work belongs elsewhere, but no alternative (ics_import, event_export, schedule_create) is named and no when-not-to-use condition is given. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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