haus

update_calendar_event

Updates fields on an existing single calendar event; only the fields supplied are changed, all others keep their current value. Imported (subscription-sourced) events cannot be edited.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Id of the calendar event to update.
`notes`	No	New freeform notes attached to the event. Omit to leave unchanged. Up to 5000 characters.
`title`	No	New event title/summary. Omit to leave unchanged. Up to 200 characters.
`isAllDay`	No	True for an all-day event with no specific start/end time; false for a timed event. Omit to leave unchanged.
`location`	No	New location, replacing the existing one entirely. Omit to leave unchanged. Set $type to 'Address' for physical (with line1-3, postalCode, countryCode) or 'OnlineLocation' for virtual (with url, notes).
`timezone`	No	IANA timezone id (e.g. 'Europe/London') describing the wall-clock zone of startDateTime/endDateTime; null = UTC. Omit to leave unchanged.
`description`	No	New longer free-text description of the event. Omit to leave unchanged. Up to 2000 characters.
`endDateTime`	No	New end date-time, ISO 8601 in UTC (Z-suffix). Must not be before startDateTime. Omit to leave unchanged.
`startDateTime`	No	New start date-time, ISO 8601 in UTC (Z-suffix). Wall clock is interpreted against the supplied timezone if any. Omit to leave unchanged.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes
`title`	No
`message`	No
`variant`	No

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint false and destructiveHint false, so the tool is a non-destructive mutation. The description adds key behavioral facts beyond annotations: omitted fields retain current values (partial update) and subscription-sourced events are immutable. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds crucial constraints. Every word earns its place with no redundant phrasing.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool has 9 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, partial-update behavior, and the key exception for imported events. It does not explain return format or error handling, but the output schema and sibling tool names mitigate those gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the important cross-parameter rule 'only the fields supplied are changed, all others keep their current value', which informs how to use all parameters (omit to leave unchanged). This goes beyond schema-provided per-parameter descriptions.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses the specific verb 'Updates' and identifies the resource as 'existing single calendar event', clearly distinguishing it from update_recurring_calendar_event. It also states partial-update semantics and the imported-event restriction, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains that only supplied fields change, which guides when to use the tool for targeted edits. It also notes that imported events cannot be edited, providing a clear when-not. However, it does not explicitly mention using update_recurring_calendar_event for recurring events, though the sibling tool name implies it.

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

All haus tools Inspect

Try in Browser

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

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear descriptions separating similar-sounding tools like create_calendar_event vs create_recurring_calendar_event. Shopping list operations (add, buy, remove, update) are clearly delineated.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_*, list_*, update_*, delete_*, get_*, etc. Even special operations like store_memory, recall_memory, and skip_recommendation fit the pattern.

Tool Count1/5

With 68 tools, this server vastly exceeds a reasonable scope; the instruction manual indicates 50+ tools is an extreme mismatch. The breadth suggests the server should be split into focused sub-servers (tasks, shopping, calendar, etc.) rather than a single monolithic interface.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers full CRUD/lifecycle for all major resources: tasks, shopping, calendar, contacts, documents, appliances, vehicles, pets, recipes, meal plans, subscriptions, and memories. Additional features like house review, weather, and profile round out the household management domain.

Resources

Need Help?