Which integrations are available for this server?

Provides comprehensive Google Calendar integration, enabling listing, creating, updating, and deleting calendar events, as well as retrieving available calendars with various filtering options. Integrates with Google Cloud for authentication and access control through service accounts and OAuth, enabling secure access to Google Calendar API resources.

How do I use Google Calendar MCP Server?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Google Calendar MCP Server list my events for today" That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

Google Calendar MCP Server

by peadams21

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Remote

Google Calendar MCP Server

A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides comprehensive Google Calendar integration capabilities. This server allows AI assistants and applications to interact with Google Calendar through a standardized protocol.

Features

List Events: Retrieve events from Google Calendar with filtering options
Create Events: Create new calendar events with full customization
Update Events: Modify existing calendar events
Delete Events: Remove events from calendars
List Calendars: Get available calendars for the authenticated user
OAuth Authentication: Secure Google Calendar API access

Related MCP server: Google Calendar MCP Server

Tools Available

`list_events`

Retrieve events from a Google Calendar with various filtering options.

Parameters:

calendarId (optional): Calendar ID (default: "primary")
timeMin (optional): Lower bound for event start time (RFC3339 timestamp)
timeMax (optional): Upper bound for event start time (RFC3339 timestamp)
maxResults (optional): Maximum number of events (default: 250)
singleEvents (optional): Expand recurring events (default: true)
orderBy (optional): Order events by "startTime" or "updated"

`create_event`

Create a new event in Google Calendar.

Parameters:

calendarId (optional): Calendar ID (default: "primary")
summary (required): Event title
description (optional): Event description
start (required): Start date/time object with dateTime and optional timeZone
end (required): End date/time object with dateTime and optional timeZone
location (optional): Event location
attendees (optional): Array of attendee objects with email and displayName
recurrence (optional): Array of RRULE strings for recurring events

`update_event`

Update an existing calendar event.

Parameters:

calendarId (optional): Calendar ID (default: "primary")
eventId (required): ID of the event to update
summary (optional): New event title
description (optional): New event description
start (optional): New start date/time
end (optional): New end date/time
location (optional): New event location
attendees (optional): New attendees list

`delete_event`

Delete an event from Google Calendar.

Parameters:

calendarId (optional): Calendar ID (default: "primary")
eventId (required): ID of the event to delete

`list_calendars`

List available Google Calendars for the authenticated user.

Parameters:

minAccessRole (optional): Minimum access role filter
showDeleted (optional): Include deleted calendars (default: false)
showHidden (optional): Include hidden calendars (default: false)

Setup

Prerequisites

Google Cloud Project: Create a project in Google Cloud Console
Enable Google Calendar API: Enable the Calendar API for your project
Service Account: Create a service account and download the JSON key file

Installation

Clone this repository
Install dependencies:
```
npm install
```
Copy the environment file and configure:
```
copy .env.example .env
```

Edit .env and set your Google Service Account key file path:

GOOGLE_SERVICE_ACCOUNT_KEY_FILE=./path/to/your/service-account-key.json

Building

# Build the TypeScript code
npm run build

# Development mode with hot reload
npm run dev

# Type checking
npm run type-check

# Clean build artifacts
npm run clean

Usage

Running the Server

# Start the compiled server
npm start

# Or run in development mode
npm run dev

Integrating with MCP Clients

Add this server to your MCP client configuration:

{
  "servers": {
    "google-calendar": {
      "type": "stdio",
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["./dist/index.js"]
    }
  }
}

For VS Code with MCP extension, add to .vscode/mcp.json:

{
  "servers": {
    "google-calendar-mcp-server": {
      "type": "stdio",
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["./dist/index.js"]
    }
  }
}

Authentication Setup

Create a Service Account:
- Go to Google Cloud Console
- Navigate to IAM & Admin > Service Accounts
- Create a new service account
- Download the JSON key file
Share Calendar Access:
- Open Google Calendar
- Go to calendar settings
- Share your calendar with the service account email
- Grant "Make changes to events" permission
Configure Environment:
- Place the JSON key file in your project directory
- Update the .env file with the correct path

Development

Project Structure

src/
├── index.ts          # Main MCP server implementation
├── types/            # TypeScript type definitions
└── utils/            # Utility functions

.env.example          # Environment variable template
tsconfig.json         # TypeScript configuration
package.json          # Node.js dependencies and scripts

Adding New Tools

Define a Zod schema for input validation
Create a ToolSchema definition
Implement the async handler function
Register the tool in the server
Add comprehensive error handling

Error Handling

All tools return structured responses:

// Success response
{
  content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(result) }]
}

// Error response
{
  content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(error) }],
  isError: true
}

Security Considerations

Never commit service account keys to version control
Use environment variables for all sensitive configuration
Implement proper error handling to avoid information leakage
Regularly rotate service account keys
Follow Google Cloud security best practices

Contributing

Fork the repository
Create a feature branch
Make your changes with proper tests
Submit a pull request

License

MIT License - see LICENSE file for details

Support

For issues and questions:

Check the Google Calendar API documentation
Review MCP specification
Open an issue in this repository

Available Tools

5 tools

create_eventC

Create a new event in Google Calendar

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`calendarId`	No	Calendar ID (default: 'primary')	primary
`summary`	Yes	Event title/summary
`description`	No	Event description
`start`	Yes
`end`	Yes
`location`	No	Event location
`attendees`	No	List of attendees
`recurrence`	No	Recurrence rules (RRULE format)

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic action. It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, what happens when creating duplicate events, or the response format. For a mutation tool with 8 parameters, this is insufficient behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear primary function and gets straight to the point.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and complex nested objects, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, error handling, response expectations, or provide usage context that would help an agent invoke it correctly in various scenarios.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 75% coverage. Since schema coverage is relatively high (>50%), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't compensate for the 25% gap or provide additional context about parameter interactions or constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and target resource ('new event in Google Calendar'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'update_event' or explain when to use create versus update, which prevents a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_event' or 'list_events'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

delete_eventC

Delete an event from Google Calendar

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`calendarId`	No	Calendar ID (default: 'primary')	primary
`eventId`	Yes	Event ID to delete

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is destructive ('Delete'), but doesn't mention permissions required, whether deletion is reversible, rate limits, or what happens to associated data. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, reversibility, or error conditions, nor does it explain what happens upon success. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more context is needed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying 'eventId' identifies what to delete. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('an event from Google Calendar'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_event' or 'create_event', but it's unambiguous about its specific function.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_event' or 'create_event'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing event ID) or contextual cues for when deletion is appropriate versus modification.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

list_calendarsB

List available Google Calendars

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`minAccessRole`	No	Minimum access role filter
`showDeleted`	No	Include deleted calendars (default: false)
`showHidden`	No	Include hidden calendars (default: false)

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation but doesn't describe what 'available' means, whether it requires specific permissions, how results are returned, or any rate limits. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list operation with good schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. The schema handles parameters well, but the description doesn't compensate for missing behavioral disclosure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('available Google Calendars'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like list_events by specifying calendars rather than events. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other calendar-related tools beyond the obvious scope difference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when to choose list_calendars over list_events, or any contextual considerations. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

list_eventsC

List events from a Google Calendar

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`calendarId`	No	Calendar ID (default: 'primary')	primary
`timeMin`	No	Lower bound for event start time (RFC3339 timestamp)
`timeMax`	No	Upper bound for event start time (RFC3339 timestamp)
`maxResults`	No	Maximum number of events to return (default: 250)
`singleEvents`	No	Whether to expand recurring events (default: true)
`orderBy`	No	Order of events (default: 'startTime')	startTime

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states the basic operation. It doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens with large result sets. For a read operation with 6 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, focused sentence with zero wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the essential operation without unnecessary elaboration or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address return format, pagination, error handling, or typical usage patterns. The agent would need to infer too much about how this tool behaves in practice.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain relationships between parameters like timeMin/timeMax, provide usage examples, or clarify edge cases. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition given the comprehensive schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('events from a Google Calendar'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'list_calendars' beyond the resource name, missing explicit scope distinction that would warrant a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_calendars' or 'create_event'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or contextual triggers for selecting this specific listing operation over others.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

update_eventC

Update an existing event in Google Calendar

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`calendarId`	No	Calendar ID (default: 'primary')	primary
`eventId`	Yes	Event ID to update
`summary`	No	Event title/summary
`description`	No	Event description
`start`	No
`end`	No
`location`	No	Event location
`attendees`	No	List of attendees

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't describe what happens with partial updates, whether changes are reversible, permission requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and has zero wasted content, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like partial updates, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with incomplete context for proper tool invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 75% description coverage, providing good documentation for most parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it doesn't compensate for the 25% gap (e.g., attendees object properties lack descriptions). With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Update') and resource ('existing event in Google Calendar'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this as an update operation rather than creation or deletion, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create_event or delete_event beyond the verb choice.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_event or delete_event. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing event ID), constraints, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

5 tool updatesAug 15, 2025
- First observedcreate_event
- First observeddelete_event
- First observedlist_calendars
- First observedlist_events
- First observedupdate_event

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. create_event, update_event, and delete_event handle the event lifecycle, while list_calendars and list_events provide listing functionality for different resources. The descriptions clearly differentiate each tool's role.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_event, list_calendars). The naming is uniform throughout with no deviations in style or convention, making it easy to predict and understand tool purposes.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools, this server is well-scoped for Google Calendar operations. Each tool earns its place by covering essential CRUD and listing functions without being overly sparse or bloated, fitting typical server tool counts.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface provides complete CRUD/lifecycle coverage for events (create, read via list, update, delete) and includes listing calendars. There are no obvious gaps for core calendar operations, ensuring agents can handle common workflows without dead ends.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Need Help?

Reddit Discussion

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Chronary A
ai.chronary
Calendar API for AI agents: events, availability, Google/Microsoft setup, scheduling, and iCal.
Calendar Management Workplace & Productivity
542
Kalender Sync A
de.kalender-sync
GDPR-compliant calendar access for AI assistants. Google, Microsoft 365, Apple & more. EU-hosted.
Calendar Management Workplace & Productivity
71
CalendarMCP
ai.calendarmcp
Hosted Google Calendar MCP server for AI agents. No self-hosting or Google Cloud setup.
Calendar Management Workplace & Productivity
2
mayla-debug-mcp-google-calendar2
ai.smithery
Schedule and manage Google Calendar events directly from your workspace. Check availability, view…
Calendar Management App Automation
2

Related MCP Servers

Calendar Tools MCP Server
Calendar Management App Automation Developer Tools
cablate
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
Enables comprehensive calendar management with capabilities to create, list, update, and delete events through a Model Context Protocol server integrated with Google Calendar.
Updated 2 years ago (2025-02-16 14:59 UTC)
166
3
MIT
Google Calendar MCP Server
Calendar Management App Automation Content Management Systems
am2rican5
A
license
Not graded
quality
F
maintenance
Integrates Google Calendar with AI assistants through the Model Context Protocol, allowing users to view and manage calendar events through natural language interaction.
Updated a year ago (2025-08-07 05:12 UTC)
197
12
MIT
Google Calendar MCP Server
Calendar Management App Automation
harshwadhawe
F
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Provides AI assistants with intelligent access to Google Calendar data, enabling natural language queries about availability, upcoming events, schedule conflicts, and meeting summaries through context-aware calendar integration.
Updated 10 months ago (2025-11-09 16:46 UTC)
-
Google Calendar MCP Server
Calendar Management App Automation
sohamkapileshwar2
F
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
Enables natural language interaction with Google Calendar via the Model Context Protocol, allowing LLMs like Claude to read and manage calendar events through the Google Calendar v3 API.
Updated a year ago (2025-06-29 09:29 UTC)
2
-

Appeared in Searches

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/peadams21/Google-Calendar-MCP-Server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server