Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

evite-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

evite_update_event

Destructive

Edit an existing Evite event by changing only the fields you pass, with a confirmation step before the update is applied.

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

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint/openWorldHint, but the description adds the crucial behavior that this mutation is gated behind user confirmation, including the exact two-phase preview + confirmToken fallback and the MCP_CONFIRM_MODE reference. That is a substantial disclosure an agent cannot get from the annotations alone, and it is consistent with them.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the action and the patch contract before the longer confirmation detail, with no filler sentences. The second sentence is dense and long, but every clause carries operational meaning.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description partially compensates by describing the phase-1 preview/confirmToken response shape. Combined with 100% schema coverage and destructive annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though it never states required permissions or what happens to unmentioned fields beyond preservation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by stating the partial-update contract ("only the fields you pass change"), which tells the agent that unspecified fields are preserved. It adds little else about individual parameters, since the schema already documents event_id, confirmToken, and the datetime fields.

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 ("Edit") and resource ("an existing Evite event") plus the patch semantics ("only the fields you pass change"), which separates it from evite_create_event and the other event lifecycle siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling directly, but the distinction is inferable without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description spends its guidance budget on the confirmation mechanism (confirm first, or the two-step confirmToken fallback), which is procedural rather than selection guidance. It never says when to prefer this over evite_create_event, evite_duplicate_event, or evite_cancel_event, so tool-selection context is only implied by the word "existing".

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