timetree-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

timetree_move_occurrence

Destructive

Move one preflighted occurrence of a recurring TimeTree event to a new start time while preserving duration and metadata, with explicit confirmation, revision checks, and an operation ID.

Instructions

Move ONLY one preflighted occurrence, preserving duration/metadata. Requires confirm=true, revision and operation_id. TWO NON-ATOMIC writes: create child then exclude original. Partial/uncertain operations remain durably blocked; never retry with a new ID or delete/rollback automatically.

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": {
      "calendar_id": "<calendar_id>",
      "event_uuid": "<event_uuid>",
      "occurrence_start_at": "<occurrence_start_at>",
      "new_start_at": "<new_start_at>",
      "expected_revision": "<expected_revision>",
      "operation_id": "<operation_id>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "timetree_move_occurrence"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`confirm`	Yes	Must be true to authorize this real TimeTree write.
`event_uuid`	Yes
`calendar_id`	Yes
`new_start_at`	Yes	Desired local start, YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SS±HH:MM, in the same IANA timezone as the series. Numeric offset must match. Duration is preserved; DST-ambiguous times and intervals crossing an offset change are rejected.
`operation_id`	Yes	Unique intent ID. Reuse the exact request to inspect its saved result; never use a new ID to retry uncertainty.
`expected_revision`	Yes
`occurrence_start_at`	Yes	Exact ORIGINAL local occurrence start, YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SS±HH:MM. Numeric UTC offset must match the series IANA timezone; ambiguous/nonexistent local times are rejected.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.3.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses behavior the annotations cannot express: the operation is TWO non-atomic writes executed in a fixed order (create child, then exclude original), and partial or uncertain outcomes leave the operation durably blocked. This directly explains the destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false annotation profile and warns against the exact remediation an agent would otherwise attempt.

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 dense sentences, no filler: purpose and scope first, required authorization second, failure/retry policy last. Every clause carries operational weight, including the ordering constraint.

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 7-required-parameter, non-atomic mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the risky parts an agent most needs (non-atomicity, blocked partial state, no blind retry). It does not say what the call returns or how to confirm terminal success, which matters given the durable-blocking failure mode.

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?

Schema coverage is 57%, and the description fills part of the gap by flagging confirm, expected_revision and operation_id as mandatory and by stating that duration and metadata are preserved by the move. It still adds no meaning for expected_revision (optimistic-concurrency check), leaving that undeclared 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Move ... one preflighted occurrence') and immediately scopes it to a single occurrence rather than the series, which is the key distinction from timetree_update_event. The word 'preflighted' implicitly points at the get_occurrence_for_edit step but never names that sibling, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions (confirm=true, expected_revision, operation_id) and hard exclusions ('never retry with a new ID', 'never delete/rollback automatically'), which is more usage guidance than most mutation tools offer. It stops short of explicitly stating the required prior call to timetree_get_occurrence_for_edit or routing uncertainty checks to timetree_occurrence_operation_status.

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