Skip to main content
Glama
thenavidm

Calendly MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List Webhook Subscriptions

list_webhooks
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch Calendly webhook subscriptions for an organization, user, or group, with filtering, sorting, and bounded page-token pagination.

Instructions

List Webhook Subscriptions. Reads Calendly data. Supports bounded opaque page_token retrieval. Required scopes: webhooks:read.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNoOrder results by the specified field and direction. Accepts comma-separated list of {field}:{direction} values. Supported fields are: created_at. Sort direction is specified as: asc, desc.
userNoIndicates if the results should be filtered by user. This parameter is only required if the `scope` parameter is set to `user`.
countNoThe number of rows to return
groupNoIndicates if the results should be filtered by group. This parameter is only required if the `scope` parameter is set to `group`.
scopeYesFilter the list by organization, user, or group
accountNoNamed private Calendly account; selects credentials, not an organization URI.
all_pagesNoRead bounded opaque page_token pages; each request consumes quota. Not a snapshot or guaranteed complete backup.
max_itemsNoMaximum returned records with all_pages=true, default 1000. At most 100 requests; output includes continuation state.
page_tokenNoThe token to pass to get the next or previous portion of the collection
organizationYesThe given organization that owns the subscriptions being returned. This field is always required.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it 'Reads Calendly data' and needs 'webhooks:read' scope, plus mentions bounded opaque page_token retrieval. It doesn't explain pagination behavior or the quirk that 'each request consumes quota' (that's only in the schema). A 3 is appropriate given the annotations cover the safety profile.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scoping, then auth requirements. No wasted words.

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?

Given the annotations carry safety/idempotency, and schema has 100% coverage with a detailed 10-param surface, the description covers the essentials: it's a read, needs webhooks:read, supports pagination. It doesn't explain the account param or the all_pages/max_items interplay, but those are in the schema. Slightly incomplete for a complex tool but adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters in detail (including max_items, all_pages, page_token). The description only mentions 'bounded opaque page_token retrieval' generically. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a clear verb and resource: 'List Webhook Subscriptions.' It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling get_webhook, but the plural 'List' and read-only nature makes the distinction reasonably clear.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this vs get_webhook or how to choose between scopes/accounts. The required scopes hint is useful but doesn't tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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