Costory: Your Finops MCP

update_event

Update an existing event. Use list_events to find the event id first. All fields except eventId are optional — provide only what you want to change. Metadata is merged into existing values except metadata.source, which is preserved internally and should not be supplied. Tags replace the full label list. Widget updates the annotation chart when the event has one; creates one if none exists. If the event has multiple charts, pass widgetEventId. EXAMPLE: "Add a PR link to yesterday's deploy event" → { eventId: "clx9abc", metadata: { link: "https://github.com/acme/app/pull/99" } } EXAMPLE: "Fix the description on the migration event" → { eventId: "clx9abc", description: "Migrated prod cluster; temporary 2-day cost spike from dual-running nodes." }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	No	New event date (YYYY-MM-DD).
`name`	No	New event name.
`slug`	No	Organization slug. Omit to auto-detect from your account (fails if you belong to multiple orgs).
`tags`	No	Replace all labels on the event.
`widget`	No	Annotation chart for the event. Same shape as the `query` tool (`queries`, `datePreset` or `from`/`to`, `aggBy`, `compare`, `limit`, `scopeId`) plus `title` and optional `description`. Providing a widget creates a visual annotation so the team can see which cost movement the event documents. On create: STRONGLY RECOMMENDED; omit only for truly org-wide events with no cost chart. On update: omit to leave existing annotation charts unchanged; pass widgetEventId when the event has multiple charts.
`eventId`	Yes	Event ID from list_events or create_event.
`category`	No	New category.
`metadata`	No	Metadata fields to merge into existing metadata (e.g. link, owner). Existing source is preserved.
`description`	No	New description.
`widgetEventId`	No	ID of the widgetEvent to update when the event has multiple annotation charts.

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing merge semantics for metadata (including the preserved `metadata.source`), full replacement behavior for tags, and widget update/create logic. These are critical behavioral traits an agent needs to know before invoking the 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 front-loaded with the primary action, followed by targeted guidance and caveats. Two concrete examples illustrate common use cases without bloat. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 10-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers all critical facets: event lookup, optional fields, metadata behavior, widget behavior, multi-chart handling, and label replacement. It is a complete operational guide.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Despite 100% schema description coverage, the description adds significant semantic value: metadata merge, tag replacement, widget creation vs. update, and the widgetEventId disambiguation are all explained. The widget parameter's pointer to the `query` tool shape is especially helpful.

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 opens with 'Update an existing event' — a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_event and list_events. It unambiguously states the tool's function and scope.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly instructs to use list_events to find the event ID first and explains that only fields needing changes should be provided. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and sets expectations for partial updates.

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

All Costory: Your Finops MCP 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are organized by resource (alerts, dashboards, reports, events, virtual dimensions) with distinct actions, so most are clearly separable. The main confusion risks are the three report-delivery side-effect tools (run_report_now, retry_report_execution, transfer_report_execution) and the generic get that spans five resource types, though detailed descriptions mitigate these.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant verb_noun pattern (create_*, list_*, update_*, preview_*, get_*) is consistent and predictable across the set. Deviations like bare verbs query/search/get and the noun-only virtual_dimension_overlap_matrix are readable but break the otherwise uniform convention.

Tool Count3/5

44 tools is heavy and exceeds the comfortable range, but the server covers a genuinely broad FinOps platform spanning querying, dashboards, reports, alerts, events, virtual dimensions, docs, skills, and suggestions. Each tool has a distinct job, though the sheer count makes agent navigation harder.

Completeness3/5

Core workflows are well covered: query → dashboard/report/alert/event, plus a full virtual-dimension draft lifecycle. Notable gaps include alerts being create-only with no update/delete, no deletes for dashboards/events/published virtual dimensions, and budget management limited to query/get with no create/update.

Resources

Need Help?