current_userGet the current Calendly user for the supplied token. Returns the user URI and organization URI — call this FIRST, since list_scheduled_events and list_event_types require a user or organization URI.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _apiKey | Yes | Calendly personal access token (sent as Bearer token) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-calendly-api-key"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. Description adds context that it returns specific URIs and serves as a prerequisite, which is useful beyond annotations.
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?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Purpose and usage instruction are front-loaded, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
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?
Low complexity tool with one well-described parameter and no output schema. The description clearly explains the return value and workflow context, making it fully complete for an agent.
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 describes the single parameter (_apiKey) fully with 100% coverage. Description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score.
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?
Clearly states 'Get the current Calendly user' with specific return values (user URI, organization URI). Distinguishes from siblings by positioning it as a prerequisite tool.
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?
Explicitly instructs to 'call this FIRST' and explains why: other tools like list_scheduled_events and list_event_types require the URIs this tool returns.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several research tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all route to the same underlying catalog. Similarly, bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, and polymarket_kalshi_spread form a dense prediction-market cluster with fuzzy boundaries. The few Calendly tools are distinct, but they are drowned out by duplicative families.
Most names use snake_case and a noun-based pattern (e.g. polymarket_edges, entity_profile), and several follow verb_noun (list_event_types, list_scheduled_events, resolve_entity). But there are standalone verbs (forget, recall, subscribe) and inconsistent verb styles (ask_ vs list_ vs scan_), so the pattern is readable but not predictable.
36 tools is far too many for a server ostensibly named Calendly: only 5 tools relate to Calendly events and invitees, while 31 tools belong to an unrelated Pipeworx data-research platform. The count is bloated by a second domain bolted onto the server, making the surface hard to navigate for its apparent purpose.
For the Calendly domain implied by the server name, the surface is missing core operations: there is no create/update/cancel/delete event, no cancel or reschedule flow, no invitee management beyond listing, and no event-type creation or editing. The Pipeworx side is broader, but even it has gaps like no bulk data export or direct raw-tool invocation.