ofw-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ofw_update_event

Destructive

Update an existing OurFamilyWizard calendar event by merging your changes into the current event, with confirmation before any shared change is written to avoid overwriting co-parent edits.

Instructions

Update an existing OurFamilyWizard calendar event. Fetches the event, applies the given changes, and writes the merged result back (OFW has no partial update). A change to an event the co-parent can see (shared before or after the change) is confirmed first; the confirmation is bound to the event exactly as read, so if it changes on OFW in between (say the co-parent edited it) the update is refused instead of overwriting their edit. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call performs NO write and returns a preview of exactly what would happen plus a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notes`	No
`title`	No
`allDay`	No
`endDate`	No	End date YYYY-MM-DD (default: startDate)
`endTime`	No	End time HH:mm, 24-hour (required unless allDay)
`eventId`	Yes	Event id — the `id` from ofw_list_events / eventRecurrenceId from ofw_create_event
`children`	No	Child userIds to tag; pass [] to remove all child tags (omit to keep current tags)
`location`	No
`startDate`	No	Start date YYYY-MM-DD
`startTime`	No	Start time HH:mm, 24-hour (required unless allDay)
`confirmToken`	No	ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.
`privateEvent`	No	true = visible only to you; default false = shared with co-parent
`eventParentId`	No	userId of the parent the event is 'for'
`pickUpParentId`	No	userId of the pick-up parent
`dropOffParentId`	No	userId of the drop-off parent
`reminderMinutes`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.19.4Sep 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining the read-modify-write behavior, the lack of partial updates in OFW, the confirmation workflow, optimistic concurrency protection, and the two-step fallback with confirmToken. This gives the agent an unusually complete picture of what happens when the tool is invoked.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence carries distinct, necessary information: purpose, merge behavior, confirmation and concurrency guarantees, and the fallback mechanism. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity, the destructiveHint annotation, and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all essential operational aspects: what it updates, how partial updates are handled, when confirmation is required, and what happens on concurrent modification. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 69%, and the description adds meaningful process-level semantics: 'applies the given changes' and 'writes the merged result back' clarify that callers can pass a subset of fields. It also explains how confirmToken fits into the two-step confirmation flow, which complements the schema's already detailed parameter descriptions.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing OurFamilyWizard calendar event.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like ofw_create_event and ofw_delete_event by emphasizing 'existing' and 'update.'

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?

The description clearly frames the tool as the way to modify an existing event, and the 'existing' wording implies it is not for creation or deletion. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the use context is clear and no exclusions are needed beyond the obvious ones.

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

ofw_update_event

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools