Fetch a specific Google Calendar event by supplying account, calendar, and event IDs.
Read an exact Google event or occurrence ID from an explicit account and calendar.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| eventId | Yes | ||
| accountId | Yes | ||
| calendarId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read' aligns with these. No additional behavioral details are given, but the description is consistent and adds minor context about exactness.
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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and directly communicates the tool's purpose.
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?
The tool has no output schema, and the description does not mention what the read operation returns (e.g., event details, occurrence metadata) or any potential errors. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent about the expected response.
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?
The description partially explains the parameters: 'exact Google event or occurrence ID' maps to eventId, 'explicit account' to accountId, and 'calendar' to calendarId. However, it does not elaborate on formats, constraints, or relationships between parameters, and schema coverage is only 0%.
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 clearly states the verb 'read' and the specific resource ('exact Google event or occurrence ID') along with the context ('explicit account and calendar'). This distinguishes it from listing or updating tools.
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 this tool is for retrieving a single specific event by ID, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives like calendar_list_events or calendar_list_instances. No when-not guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.