Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

evite-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

evite_update_event

Update an existing Evite event, changing only the fields you specify. Includes a confirmation step to prevent accidental edits, and works for title, message, and start/end times.

Instructions

Edit an existing Evite event (only the fields you pass change). Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNoNew title.
messageNoNew event message / description.
event_idYesEvite event id to edit (event_id from evite_list_events).
confirmTokenNoONLY 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.
end_datetimeNoNew end datetime (ISO 8601).
start_datetimeNoNew start datetime (ISO 8601).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.3.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmToken
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "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.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description thoroughly discloses the confirmation-first behavior, explaining both the client-supported elicitation path and the two-step confirmToken fallback. It adds substantial behavioral context beyond the basic readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, especially the requirement to confirm before changes proceed.

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?

Two sentences, with the core editing purpose front-loaded and the necessary confirmation mechanics in the second sentence. There is no redundant wording or filler; every sentence carries essential operational information.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key invocation details: editing semantics, partial updates, user confirmation, preview/token flow, and the rule for repeat calls. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and understand what will happen.

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?

All six parameters are already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds important semantic value with 'only the fields you pass change,' which clarifies partial-update behavior not stated in the schema, and reinforces the confirmToken lifecycle. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Edit an existing Evite event,' and clarifies that only supplied fields change. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling create, cancel, and duplicate tools, even without naming them explicitly.

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 gives clear context: use when editing an existing Evite event, with partial updates via only the fields passed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'when not to use,' but the purpose is clear enough for an agent to select it over related tools.

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