Gmail Multi-Inbox MCP Server

get_event

Retrieve complete details of a specific calendar event from a Gmail account by providing account, calendar ID, and event ID.

Instructions

Get full details of a single calendar event.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "account": "<account>",
      "calendar_id": "<calendar_id>",
      "event_id": "<event_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`account`	Yes	Account id.
`event_id`	Yes	Event ID.
`calendar_id`	Yes	Calendar ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.6.2Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get full details', implying read-only, but does not disclose potential errors, required permissions, rate limits, or what 'full details' actually encompasses. For a read operation, the risk is lower, but transparency is still limited.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with three well-documented parameters, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what 'full details' means in terms of response content. While not critically incomplete, the vague phrase leaves some ambiguity about the returned data, though the low complexity keeps it at a minimum viable level.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all three parameters (account, calendar_id, event_id), giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('full details of a single calendar event'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_events (which lists multiple events) and create/update/delete_event. The scope is unambiguous: a single event's complete details.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that list_events should be used for multiple events or that create_event is for new events. The description simply states what the tool does without contextualizing its usage among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server