Fetch a single calendar event by its ID, optionally including raw data and body content.
Fetch a single event by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mailbox | No | ||
| event_id | Yes | ||
| include_raw | No | ||
| include_body | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Fetch a single event by id' and doesn't disclose what happens with include_raw/include_body, whether the event is returned in a specific format, or any side effects. For a read operation this is a moderate gap, but the lack of any behavioral context beyond the basic action is notable.
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?
The description is a single, short sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. An agent doesn't know what the response looks like, what include_raw/include_body do, or how this relates to list_events. For a tool with 4 parameters, this is incomplete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by id' which maps to event_id, but doesn't explain mailbox, include_raw, or include_body. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's property names, so it doesn't fully compensate for the 0% coverage.
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 ('Fetch') and resource ('a single event by id'), which clearly identifies the tool's core function. It doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like get_message or list_events, but the resource and id-based lookup are clear enough.
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?
The description implies usage: use this when you need a single event by its ID. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_events for browsing events, but the context is reasonably clear for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.