Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

zola-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_event

DestructiveIdempotent

Update a wedding event's details—name, time, venue, address, dress code, and RSVP settings—after user confirmation. Guests see the updated information on the website.

Instructions

Update a wedding event (name, time, venue, location, dress code, RSVP settings). Guests see these details on the website. 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
cityNo
nameNoEvent name
noteNoEvent notes/description
attireNoDress code
end_atNoEnd time ISO 8601
address1NoStreet address
event_idYesEvent entity ID from list_events
start_atNoStart time ISO 8601 (e.g. 2026-10-17T18:30:00Z)
venue_nameNoVenue name
postal_codeNo
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.
country_codeNoDefault: US
collect_rsvpsNoWhether to collect RSVPs for this event
state_provinceNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.4
    • 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 changedv2.0.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. First observedv1.4.2

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining the mandatory user confirmation flow, the two-phase fallback with preview/confirmToken, and the fact that guests see these details on the website. This does not contradict the idempotentHint or destructiveHint annotations.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core operation. The confirmation sentence is dense but earns its place because it documents a non-obvious call protocol.

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?

For a 14-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the most important non-obvious behavior: the confirmation flow and public visibility of changes. The detailed schema descriptions and annotations cover the remaining specifics well enough for correct invocation.

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?

The description groups fields into broad categories already present in the schema, and 79% schema description coverage means the schema carries most parameter meaning. The confirmToken semantics are thoroughly documented in the schema itself, so the description adds little beyond conceptual grouping.

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 operation ('Update a wedding event') and enumerates the editable aspects (name, time, venue, location, dress code, RSVP settings). This clearly differentiates it from sibling update_* tools targeting pages, FAQs, vendors, or website settings.

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 intended use is implied by the operation name and description, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusionary or alternative-routing statements are provided.

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