Postfjord

Update calendar note

postfjord_update_calendar_note

DestructiveIdempotent

Changes a calendar note. Send only what changes. Sending from without to moves the whole note and keeps how many days it covers.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "noteId": "<noteId>"
    },
    "name": "postfjord_update_calendar_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	New last day, YYYY-MM-DD.
`from`	No	New first day, YYYY-MM-DD. Without to, the note keeps its length.
`text`	No	An empty string removes the text.
`color`	No
`title`	No	A short title, at most 80 characters.
`noteId`	Yes	The note id from postfjord_list_calendar_notes or postfjord_create_calendar_note.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 28, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / from / description
```
Added value: +"New first day, YYYY-MM-DD. Without to, the note keeps its length."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / title / description
```
Added value: +"A short title, at most 80 characters."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / to / description
```
Added value: +"New last day, YYYY-MM-DD."
```
First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real patch semantics ('send only what changes') and the move rule, but never explains the destructive dimension the annotation flags — e.g. that changing dates can overwrite/reschedule a note or that text is replaced rather than appended.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and then the invocation rule. The third sentence largely repeats the `from` field description from the schema, a minor redundancy, but overall there is no filler.

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 6-parameter mutation with no output schema and partial-update semantics, the description covers how to call it but not what comes back or what happens to fields omitted in edge cases. Adequate, with clear gaps an agent would have to discover by trial.

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 83%, so the schema already documents from/to/text/title/noteId meaningfully. The description restates the from-without-to rule that the `from` schema field already states, adding no new parameter-level detail beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb ('Changes') and resource ('a calendar note'), which cleanly separates it from postfjord_create_calendar_note and postfjord_delete_calendar_note in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name the alternatives, but the operation is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Send only what changes' gives clear patch-style invocation guidance, which is the main usage decision an agent faces here. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over delete/create, nor of prerequisites such as fetching the note id first (that is only in the schema).

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

All Postfjord tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?