Find available time slots in a Feishu calendar within a specified time range and meeting duration, enabling conflict-free event scheduling.
获取可用时间段 (Get available time slots)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_time | Yes | 结束时间，Unix 时间戳，单位毫秒 (End time timestamp in ms) | |
| start_time | Yes | 开始时间，Unix 时间戳，单位毫秒 (Start time timestamp in ms) | |
| calendar_id | Yes | 日历 ID (Calendar ID) | |
| duration_minutes | Yes | 需要的时长（分钟）(Duration in minutes) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether this is read-only, how availability is computed, whether existing events/working hours/timezones are considered, or any permission needs.
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 bilingual one-line description is front-loaded and free of filler. It is appropriately concise, though extremely terse and could include a small amount of routing context without becoming bloated.
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 scheduling query with four required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks timezone assumptions, availability computation rules, and any indication of what the returned slots represent.
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 all four parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as inclusive/exclusive time boundaries or duration behavior, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 and resource ('获取可用时间段' / Get available time slots), so the basic action is clear. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like feishu_get_free_busy or clarify the scope of availability.
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?
Provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative-tool comparisons. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name and input schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.