nylas_get_eventGet a single calendar event by id. Requires calendar_id (sent as a query param). Nylas v3: GET /v3/grants/{grant_id}/events/{event_id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| event_id | Yes | The event id to fetch. | |
| grant_id | No | Connected-account grant id. Overrides NYLAS_GRANT_ID for this call. | |
| calendar_id | Yes | REQUIRED. The calendar id (sent as a query param). |
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 declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that calendar_id is a query param and provides the underlying API endpoint, which gives some behavioral insight. However, it does not mention return structure or error handling, which would be helpful.
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 sentences, no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds a requirement and API path. Every sentence adds value.
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 getter with no output schema, the description is adequate but could be more complete. It does not describe the response shape or potential errors, which would help an agent use the tool correctly.
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% (all parameters have descriptions). The description reinforces the required calendar_id but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states 'Get a single calendar event by id' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like nylas_list_events (lists events) and nylas_create_event (creates events).
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?
The description mentions 'Requires calendar_id (sent as a query param)', providing a key requirement. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it over list or create tools.
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: create vs list vs get for specific entities like draft, event, calendar, contact, grant, message, folder. There is no overlap, as even similar verbs like 'list' are paired with unique nouns. Agents can easily select the correct tool.
All tool names follow a uniform 'nylas_verb_noun' pattern using snake_case, with clear and predictable verbs (create, get, list, send) and nouns (draft, event, calendar, etc.). The naming is fully consistent across all 15 tools.
With 15 tools, the set is well-scoped for a Nylas integration covering email, calendar, and contacts. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy, and the count falls comfortably within the ideal range of 3-15 tools.
The tool set covers reading and limited creation (drafts, events) but lacks update and delete operations for all entities, as well as create for contacts. This leaves notable gaps for full lifecycle management, though core workflows like listing and fetching are present.