confluence_list_calendarsList Confluence calendars and narrow results by calendar type or search by name, space, or key.
List Confluence calendars, optionally narrowed by type or a name/space search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | Filter by calendar name, space name, or space key (case-insensitive) | |
| filter_type | No | Filter by calendar type (e.g. 'leaves') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv0.10.1Input schema / properties / searchAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "Filter by calendar name, space name, or space key (case-insensitive)"
+}v0.6.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile, so the bar is lowered. The description adds the scoping constraint but no return format, pagination, or result-limit behavior beyond what annotations provide, making it minimally adequate.
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 the core action first and the optional narrowing second. No filler or redundancy.
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 read-only, zero-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description says nothing about what a listing returns or how results are bounded, leaving a gap an agent would want covered.
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 100%, so both parameters (search, filter_type) are already documented with clear semantics and a type example ('leaves'). The description only restates them at a high level, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
Clear specific verb plus resource: 'List Confluence calendars'. It scopes the operation and hints at filtering. It does not explicitly differentiate from the near siblings confluence_get_time_off or confluence_sprint_capacity, so it falls just short of a 5.
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?
'Optionally narrowed by type or a name/space search' implies when the filters are appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no named alternative tool. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.