Calvin discusses legal and evangelical repentance (Institutes 3.3.4) but 1) seems to apply it differently than you just did and 2) didn't seem to favor such terminology (3.3.5). That's not necessarily bad, I'm just not sure I understand exactly how you are defining it.
He was addressing a different use of the terms legal and evangelical. His laying precedence on faith before repentance and impossibility of repentance without faith is virtually the same distinction as the Marrowmen. Boston might help to show the difference a little clearer:
(1.) That repentance is the doctrine of the gospel. I do indeed think, that it cannot be denied but that the law requires repentance as a duty, in so far as it binds the apostate sinner to return to God: but in the meantime it gives no hope of mercy to the penitent, seeing its constant voice is, "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." But the gospel gives the glad tidings of place for repentance, and shews how the apostate creature returning will be accepted. And there can be no true returning to God, where there is no hope of acceptance.
(2.) Repentance is a promise of the covenant of grace: Ezek. xxxvi. 31, "Then shall ye remember your own evil ways, and your doings that were not good, and shall loath yourselves in your own sight, for your iniquities, and for your abominations."
It is not only the duty of God's elect, but their privilege, made over to them in Jesus Christ, purchased by his death, and bestowed on them by virtue of his exaltation. Acts v. 31. And hence, as one of the benefits of that covenant, it is sealed in baptism, Mark i.4.
The sum of what is said on this second head, is, that repentance is an evangelical softness of heart, and bent of spirit to turn away from sin, and to turn to God, wrought in a soul by the Spirit of Christ. The Spirit of holiness being given to Christ without measure, he puts the same Spirit in his elect in the day of his power; who by his grace melts the heart for sin, and bends it away from sin to holiness.
This is all taught under Calvin's view of "true repentance."
Would you say that when proclaiming the gospel we call every individual to evangelical repentance or legal repentance? Or do we omit the adjectives and cover both indefinitely?
A faithful teacher distinguishes with Calvin and Boston and shows the difference between repentance worked out of the sinner's own bowels and that true repentance which comes in a way of saving faith. If the distinction is not made the hearer will not be able to tell the difference between a law-work and gospel-grace.