Skip to main content
Glama
theluckystrike

mcp-office-suite

by theluckystrike
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Write a calendar invite

ics_create

Create a calendar invite file for one meeting, with title, time zone, attendees, and location. Times stored in UTC land correctly in any calendar, handling DST gaps.

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool writes a file, returns a path and start time, stores times in UTC, and has a monthly quota of 3 files. It does not mention overwrite behavior or edge cases like DST refusal, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Three short sentences carry the essential usage instruction, return-value summary, timezone rationale, and quota limitation. Every sentence earns its place and the main action is front-loaded.

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?

The rich input schema covers all parameters, and the description supplies the missing return-value and timezone context. There is no output schema, and the description does not specify the exact output format beyond 'path plus the start in UTC and in your zone', but it is still sufficient for an agent to call the tool successfully.

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 the schema already documents all 12 parameters in detail. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the overall write-an-.ics behavior, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'write a .ics for one meeting' and states the return values (path plus start time in UTC and local zone). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ics_import and events_list.

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?

The description begins with 'Call this tool to...' and clearly identifies the use case: writing a single calendar invite. It does not name alternative tools for importing or exporting events, so it lacks explicit exclusions, but the context is unmistakable.

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