Edit an event. Set is_cancelled=true to cancel (preserves history). Set max_attendees=null to lift the cap.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| tags | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| end_date | No | ||
| location | No | ||
| timezone | No | ||
| event_type | No | ||
| start_date | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| meeting_url | No | ||
| is_cancelled | No | ||
| max_attendees | No | ||
| cover_image_url | No | ||
| description_json | No | ||
| description_format | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that cancellation preserves history and that null max_attendees lifts the cap. But it omits other important behaviors such as partial vs full update semantics, permission requirements, or response format, which are critical for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The most important usage notes are front-loaded, making the description easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a high-complexity mutation tool with 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far too brief. It doesn't cover common edit scenarios, validation rules, or what the tool returns, leaving the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and only two of fifteen parameters (is_cancelled and max_attendees) receive semantic explanation. The remaining parameters like description_json, description_format, and timezone are not clarified, leaving a large gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Edit an event') that clearly distinguishes it from create, get, and list tools. It is not tautological and immediately conveys the tool's scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context is clear: this tool modifies existing events. It also gives conditional guidance for cancellation and lifting attendee caps. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with create_event or other edit tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct resource/action combination, and similar-looking tools are carefully differentiated in descriptions (e.g., get_course_structure vs list_course_modules, update_lesson vs update_lesson_content). There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between tools.
All tools use a consistent 'hivelearn_<verb>_<noun>' pattern with common verbs (get, list, create, update). The only minor deviation is 'add' vs 'create' (add_track_course vs create_track), but this is semantically appropriate and does not disrupt the overall pattern.
With 57 tools, the server is significantly over the recommended range and exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the broad domain (courses, community, analytics) justifies a large surface, this many tools makes selection overwhelming for agents and suggests a need for consolidation or sub-servers.
The tool surface covers create, read, and update for most core entities (courses, lessons, quizzes, tracks, posts, events, resources), plus publishing/verification and analytics. However, there are notable gaps: no delete operations for courses, lessons, modules, quizzes, posts, events, resources, or enrollments, and no way to remove a course from a track. These lifecycle holes are significant but not fatal for common workflows.
