Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

zola-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_event

DestructiveIdempotent

Update wedding event details like name, time, venue, location, dress code, and RSVP settings so guests see accurate website info. Confirmation is required before saving changes.

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

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

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, and the description adds real context on top: guest-visible publication effects ('Guests see these details on the website') and a full account of the confirmation protocol — elicitation where supported, otherwise a preview plus confirmToken that must never be invented, reused, or sent on the first call. That is substantive behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations, with no contradiction.

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 purpose and its user-visible consequence are front-loaded in one sentence, and the confirmation protocol follows. The second sentence is dense and slightly crammed, but every clause carries operational information the agent needs, so there is little waste.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the risky parts: the confirmation handshake, the preview response shape, and the token lifecycle. It stops short of describing partial-update semantics or the full return payload beyond the preview, leaving a minor gap.

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 79%, just below the high-coverage baseline, and the description maps its field list onto the parameter set while adding invocation rules for confirmToken (repeat call with identical arguments, ignored under elicitation) that go beyond the schema text. It does not clarify whether omitted fields are preserved, which is the main remaining gap.

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 and resource ('Update a wedding event') and enumerates the field groups affected (name, time, venue, location, dress code, RSVP settings), so an agent knows exactly what it modifies. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbours like update_wedding_settings or update_page, which keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the field list and by the confirmation-flow instructions, which tell the agent when to pass confirmToken and when not to. However, it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as update_wedding_settings, update_page, or update_guest_address, so the routing guidance is only partially covered.

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