Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

skylight-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

skylight_update_event

Modify an existing calendar event by its ID, updating details like title, time, location, recurrence, or family assignments to keep schedules accurate.

Instructions

Update a calendar event by id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
rruleNoiCalendar RRULE for recurrence.
all_dayNo
ends_atNoISO 8601 end.
frameIdNo
summaryNoEvent title.
locationNo
timezoneNo
starts_atNoISO 8601 start.
descriptionNo
category_idsNoFamily-member category ids to assign the event to (see skylight_list_categories / skylight_resolve_member).
invited_emailsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.1
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.7.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / category_ids / items / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / category_ids / items / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number"
+]
  3. First observedv0.4.6

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't contradict them. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It doesn't disclose whether the update is partial or full replacement, whether it affects recurring events, what happens to omitted fields, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it's so minimal that it doesn't earn its place beyond restating the tool name. It's not verbose, but it also doesn't add meaningful information beyond the name and schema.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with 12 parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral annotations, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain the update semantics (partial vs full), how recurrence interacts with updates, or what the response contains. The schema provides some parameter documentation, but the overall context is incomplete for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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 description coverage is 42%, so the schema documents some parameters (rrule, ends_at, summary, starts_at, category_ids) but leaves others undocumented (id, all_day, frameId, location, timezone, description, invited_emails). The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond 'by id'. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does partial work, but the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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?

The description 'Update a calendar event by id' clearly states the verb (update), the resource (calendar event), and the key identifier (by id). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like skylight_create_event and skylight_delete_event, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The description is clear and specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's core function.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for updating existing events (vs creating new ones), nor does it reference related tools like skylight_create_event or skylight_get_event. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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