acuity_list_blocksList blocked-off (unavailable) time ranges on the account's calendars. Acuity REST: GET /blocks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max | No | Max blocks to return. | |
| maxDate | No | Only blocks on/before this date (YYYY-MM-DD or ISO datetime). | |
| minDate | No | Only blocks on/after this date (YYYY-MM-DD or ISO datetime). | |
| calendarID | No | Filter to a specific calendar id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that it lists 'unavailable time ranges', consistent with read-only, but does not reveal additional behaviors like pagination or response format.
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 short sentences with no waste. Every word 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 list tool with no output schema, the description is brief but sufficient for basic understanding. However, it lacks details on return structure or behavior.
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 the description adds no value beyond schema. Baseline 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'blocked-off (unavailable) time ranges on the account's calendars'. It distinguishes from sibling list tools by specifying 'blocked-off' and 'calendars'.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like availability classes. The description lacks context for usage.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action (appointments, clients, calendars, etc.) with clear naming and no overlapping functionality.
All tools follow the consistent pattern 'acuity_<verb>_<noun>' with uniform verb choices (list, get, create, cancel, reschedule) and proper pluralization.
18 tools cover the essential aspects of a scheduling system (availability, appointments, clients, calendars, etc.) without being excessive or insufficient.
Core scheduling operations are well covered, but missing update and delete for clients, and read-only access to other entities (e.g., appointment types, blocks) may limit full lifecycle management.