get_eventFetch full details of a Calendly event by its UUID. Requires scheduled_events:read scope.
Get Event. Reads Calendly data. Required scopes: scheduled_events:read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Named private Calendly account; selects credentials, not an organization URI. | |
| event_uuid | Yes | The event's unique identifier |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations do not carry: the required OAuth scope scheduled_events:read. It stops there, offering nothing about pagination, error behavior, or what the read returns.
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?
Three short sentences with the scope requirement front-loaded and nothing padded. The opening "Get Event" is redundant with the title, which is the only wasted token.
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?
With only two simple parameters and full schema coverage, the definition is minimally serviceable, and the auth scope is a real addition. However, with no output schema, the description leaves what a returned event contains entirely unexplained.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents account and event_uuid, including the pattern and account semantics. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
"Get Event" merely restates the tool name and title, and "Reads Calendly data" is a generic category rather than a specific resource. The scope hint "scheduled_events:read" narrows it slightly, but with siblings like get_event_type, get_event_invitee, and list_events, an agent cannot tell precisely which resource this fetches without inference.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_event_invitee, list_events, or get_event_type, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance. Usage is only weakly implied by the singular "Event" in the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.