Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Infomaniak Calendar MCP Server

Infomaniak Calendar MCP Server

Official
by Infomaniak
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

calendar_update_event

Modify an existing Infomaniak calendar event's title, start/end time, attendees, description, or recurrence rule. Use the event ID to apply updates and optionally notify attendees.

Instructions

Update an existing Infomaniak calendar event

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": {
      "event_id": "<event_id>"
    },
    "name": "calendar_update_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endNoEvent end time (Date time string)
rruleNoRecurrence rule in RFC 5545 format, e.g. FREQ=WEEKLY;INTERVAL=1;BYDAY=MO or FREQ=DAILY or FREQ=MONTHLY;BYMONTHDAY=15. Use empty string to remove recurrence.
startNoEvent start time (Date time string)
titleNoEvent title
event_idYesThe ID of the event to update
attendeesNoList of attendee email addresses as a JSON array
calendar_idNoCalendar ID (optional, uses event's calendar if not provided)
descriptionNoEvent description
notify_attendeesNoSend the updated invitation to attendees via email (imip). Defaults to false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.1

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and supplies none of it: it does not say whether this is a partial or full replacement update, what happens to fields omitted from the call, whether calendar_id must match the event's calendar, or what permission level is required. For a 9-parameter mutation tool this is a significant gap, and the only behavioral detail (notify_attendees default, empty rrule removing recurrence) comes from the schema, not the description.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single short sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is efficient but so terse that the brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the agent needs to know update semantics (merge vs replace), side effects on attendees, and error conditions. None of that is present, leaving the definition materially incomplete despite the rich schema.

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 100% and each parameter carries a usable description, including the RFC 5545 rrule example and the notify_attendees default. The description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 plus resource ('Update an existing ... calendar event'), which clearly separates it from calendar_create_event and calendar_delete_event among the siblings. It is clear but does not name siblings or scope the update any further.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement that only the event_id is required and other fields are optional, and no mention of prerequisites or how this differs from calendar_create_event for editing a series. The agent must infer usage entirely from the schema.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools