OurFamilyWizard MCP

ofw_update_event

Destructive

Update an existing OurFamilyWizard calendar event by fetching, merging changes, and writing back, with confirmation for shared events and conflict detection.

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

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?

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint/openWorldHint): it discloses read-modify-write merging, optimistic-concurrency refusal when the event changed on OFW, the EVENT_UNCONFIRMED failure mode with an explicit do-not-retry instruction, and the elicitation vs confirmToken confirmation paths. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a destructive mutation.

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-loaded with purpose, then the concurrency and confirmation behavior in rough priority order. It is dense but nearly every sentence carries load-bearing information; the final confirmation sentence is somewhat jargon-heavy (MCP_CONFIRM_MODE) for its payoff.

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-param destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the safety-critical surface: merge semantics, stale-write refusal, unconfirmed-write handling, and the confirmation protocol. Only the shape of a successful response is left implicit, which the absence of an output schema makes acceptable.

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 carries most parameter documentation. The description adds one meaningful general rule ('writes the merged result back', i.e. omitted fields are preserved) but does not clarify the undocumented params (title, notes, allDay, location), so it neither fully compensates nor is empty.

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 implementation posture (fetch, merge, write back, no partial update). This clearly separates it from ofw_create_event / ofw_delete_event / ofw_list_events.

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 context: it directs the agent to ofw_list_events to determine whether an EVENT_UNCONFIRMED write landed, and explains the confirmation requirement before any shared-event change. It never states explicit exclusions against sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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