OurFamilyWizard MCP

ofw_update_event

Destructive

Update an existing OurFamilyWizard calendar event. Merges changes and writes back after confirming shared-event edits; refuses if the event changed on OFW first.

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. If the write fails without a definitive answer, or lands but cannot be re-read to confirm it, the result is EVENT_UNCONFIRMED: the change may already be on OFW, so do NOT retry until ofw_list_events shows whether it landed. 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.

Changed1 schema field changedv2.19.4Sep 25, 2026

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"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv2.17.0Sep 17, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

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

First observedv2.8.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description carries far more: read-modify-write with no partial update, optimistic-concurrency refusal when the event changed on OFW, the EVENT_UNCONFIRMED outcome and its 'may already have landed' meaning, and the two-phase confirmation with confirmToken. This is exactly the behavioral context annotations do not provide, and it is consistent with destructiveHint.

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?

A single dense paragraph, front-loaded with purpose, then concurrency, then failure semantics, then confirmation. Every sentence earns its place, though the paragraph is heavy and would read better segmented into distinct clauses.

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 16-parameter mutation with no output schema and only destructiveHint as annotation, the description covers the read-merge-write contract, concurrency refusal, unconfirmed-result handling, and the confirmation protocol. An agent has everything needed to call it safely.

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?

Schema coverage is 69%, so the schema documents most parameters (eventId, dates, children, confirmToken, etc.). The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema — it focuses on workflow semantics — so the baseline 3 for schema-carried parameter docs is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update an existing OurFamilyWizard calendar event') and immediately clarifies the mechanism: fetch, apply changes, write the merged result back because 'OFW has no partial update'. This distinguishes it from ofw_create_event and ofw_delete_event without needing the schemas.

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 strong operational guidance: do NOT retry on EVENT_UNCONFIRMED until ofw_list_events shows whether the change landed, and routes the agent through the confirmation flow. It stops short of explicitly contrasting when to pick this over ofw_create_event/ofw_delete_event, so it is clear context rather than full alternative-routing.

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