list_availability_schedulesFetch a Calendly user's availability schedules by user URI to inspect bookable hours and scheduling rules.
List User Availability Schedules. Reads Calendly data. Required scopes: availability:read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | Yes | A URI reference to a user | |
| account | No | Named private Calendly account; selects credentials, not an organization URI. |
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, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context by naming the required OAuth scope ('availability:read'), which signals an auth precondition the agent would otherwise have to discover. It says nothing about pagination or result volume, capping it below a 4.
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, front-loaded sentences that are easy to scan. The middle sentence 'Reads Calendly data' is largely filler given the readOnlyHint annotation, which keeps it from being a 5.
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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits pagination/return-size behavior and does not clarify the singular-vs-list distinction against sibling tools, leaving meaningful gaps.
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 both parameters ('user' as a URI reference and 'account' as a credential selector). The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 description states a specific verb and resource ('List User Availability Schedules'), and the name distinguishes it from the singular get_availability_schedule and from list_event_type_availability_schedules. It does not, however, explicitly contrast its scope with those siblings, so the differentiation is left to inference from the name.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as get_availability_schedule or list_event_type_availability_schedules. The agent must guess from the name alone whether this is the right tool for a given schedule-listing need.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.