Discord MCP - Discord server management MCP for AI agents

Update event

update_event

Edit scheduled event details or change its status to start or end it. Ending an event requires a confirmation token from a preview call, preventing accidental completion.

Instructions

Edit a scheduled event's details, or move it through its lifecycle: status start makes it live, status end completes it. An ended event cannot be started again, so ending one needs confirming: the first call changes nothing and returns a preview and a confirm_token, and repeating the call with the token makes the change. Everything else happens at once.

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": "<event>"
    },
    "name": "update_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`event`	Yes	Event name or ID.
`guild`	No	Guild (server) name or ID. Omit to use the default guild.
`status`	No
`end_time`	No
`location`	No
`start_time`	No
`description`	No
`confirm_token`	No	The token from this exact action's preview. Where the app can show a confirmation dialog, calling with it asks the user there, and it happens only if they agree.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.4.2Nov 12, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

addedInput schema / properties / confirm_token

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The token from this exact action's preview. Where the app can show a confirmation dialog, calling with it asks the user there, and it happens only if they agree.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv1.3.0Aug 12, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedv1.0.2Jun 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the highest-value behavior an agent needs: ending is irreversible ("An ended event cannot be started again"), and ending is two-phase — the first call is a no-op that returns a preview and confirm_token, and only the repeat call with that token commits. It also clarifies that all other edits apply immediately, and that confirm_token may surface a user confirmation dialog. Minor tension exists with destructiveHint=false, since ending is described as irreversible, but that hint concerns data destruction rather than a status transition.

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?

Three sentences, all front-loaded: capability first, then the lifecycle/irreversibility caveat, then the confirmation protocol, closing with the default behavior for everything else. No sentence is redundant.

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 a 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the risky and non-obvious paths (irreversible end, preview/token round trip, immediate application for other fields) and describes the preview return shape. It leaves permissions requirements and the start_time/end_time format unanswered.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description carries real weight and does explain the two most subtle parameters: status enum semantics and how confirm_token is obtained and used. However, six parameters (event, guild, name, start_time, end_time, location, description) get no added meaning, and the time fields' expected format is left entirely unspecified in both description and schema.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ("Edit a scheduled event's details") and adds a second distinct capability ("move it through its lifecycle"), which separates it from create_event/get_event/cancel_event in practice. It never names a sibling tool explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 gives concrete when-to-use rules for the lifecycle modes (status start makes it live, status end completes it) and spells out the precondition for the confirm flow on ending. It stops short of routing the agent elsewhere — e.g. it never says to use cancel_event instead when the event should be cancelled rather than ended.

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

Deploy Server