Retrieve a calendar event by event_id, including attendees and reminders; for recurring events, return the whole series. Use it to inspect full event details before acting.
Get one event (whole series for recurring events) with attendees and reminders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | Yes | Event id (the `id` field of calendar.events / calendar.search results). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full behavioral burden. It adds useful context by disclosing that recurring events return the whole series and that attendees and reminders are included. However, it doesn't state read-only safety, permission requirements, or error behavior for missing event_ids.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. Every element (single event, recurring series, attendees, reminders) earns its place.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by stating what is returned (attendees and reminders) and how recurring events are handled (whole series). Only minor gaps remain around error handling or authentication, which are less critical here.
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 coverage is 100% and the sole event_id parameter is well-documented in the schema, including its source (calendar.events / calendar.search). The description adds no further parameter semantics, which is the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one event'), and distinguishes from list tools by explicitly saying 'one event' and noting whole-series behavior for recurring events. It doesn't name a specific sibling alternative, but the scope is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is implied: an agent would naturally use this after finding an event_id. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like calendar_search or calendar_events, and no exclusions. Minimum viable guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.