sync-day

Update event

update_event

Idempotent

Organiser only: change any event settings (same fields and rules as create_event; omitted fields keep their current value; endDate wins over days). Existing picks are kept; those no longer valid starts are just hidden.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`days`	No	Number of consecutive days from startDate (1-21); alternative to endDate.
`slug`	Yes	Event slug from the URL, e.g. calm-otter-4821 (sync.day/calm-otter-4821)
`title`	No	Event name, max 60 chars. e.g. 周末聚餐, Team sync
`hourTo`	No	End of each day's window, exclusive (1-24), must be > hourFrom. e.g. 22
`endDate`	No	Last candidate day, inclusive, YYYY-MM-DD (same as startDate for a single day; at most 21 days). Give this or days; endDate wins when both are set.
`adminKey`	Yes	Organiser key returned by create_event (the ?key= part of adminUrl).
`hourFrom`	No	Earliest hour of each day (0-23). e.g. 9
`question`	No	Optional prompt shown to participants, max 200 chars. e.g. 哪天晚上有空？
`startDate`	No	First candidate day, YYYY-MM-DD. e.g. 2026-09-05
`durationMinutes`	No	Event length in minutes. One of 30, 60, 90, 120, 180, 240, 480.
`startStepMinutes`	No	Gap between candidate start times in minutes: 30 or 60 (default 60).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), the description discloses several non-obvious behaviors: omitted fields keep current values, endDate takes precedence over days, existing picks are retained, and invalid starts are merely hidden. This exactly covers the update semantics an agent needs to know before invoking.

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?

Two sentences carry the essential permissions, update behavior, conflict rule, and participant effects with no filler. The most important constraint (organiser only) is front-loaded.

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?

For an 11-parameter update tool with no output schema, this is nearly complete: permissions, partial-update semantics, conflict resolution, and downstream effects on picks are all covered. It delegates field-level rules to create_event and does not describe the response shape, leaving a small gap.

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?

The schema already documents all parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable cross-cutting parameter behavior—omitted fields are unchanged and endDate overrides days—and points to create_event for shared field rules, exceeding schema-only information.

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?

Description opens with 'Organiser only: change any event settings', naming a specific action (change) on a specific resource (event) and immediately scoping it to the organiser. It also distinguishes the update semantics from create_event by stating omitted fields persist and picks are preserved.

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?

It clearly indicates this tool is for changing settings of an existing event and requires organiser credentials, which is strong usage context. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or name alternative tools, but the update-vs-create distinction is implied through 'same fields and rules as create_event'.

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

All sync-day 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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: creation, parsing, reading, updating, deciding, submitting availability, voting, and participant removal. The closest pair, submit_availability and vote_time, are separated by their inputs (startOptions vs voteOptions) and lifecycle stage.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern, e.g. create_event, get_event, update_event, vote_time, decide_time. Minor compound names like parse_event_text and remove_participant still fit the same predictable convention.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is well-scoped for an availability-polling server. Each tool covers a distinct part of the workflow without redundancy or excessive fragmentation.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is covered: create, parse, read, update, submit availability, vote, decide, and remove participants. The only notable gap is no explicit delete/cancel event tool, but this does not break the main scheduling workflow.

Resources

Need Help?