Chronos MCP

update_journal

Update specific fields of a journal entry without affecting others. Provide only the fields you want to change.

Instructions

Update an existing journal entry. Only provided fields will be updated.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "calendar_uid": "<calendar_uid>",
      "journal_uid": "<journal_uid>"
    },
    "name": "update_journal"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`account`	No	Account alias
`summary`	No	Journal entry title/summary
`entry_date`	No	Journal entry date (ISO format)
`request_id`	No
`description`	No	Journal entry content
`journal_uid`	Yes	Journal UID to update
`calendar_uid`	Yes	Calendar UID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are absent, so description carries full burden. It notes partial update behavior ('Only provided fields will be updated') but omits details on idempotency, authorization, or error handling.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, no fluff. Critical information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple update tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but missing usage guidelines and behavioral details. It covers the core functionality but not enough for an agent to use it effectively in all scenarios.

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 86%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds the 'only provided fields' nuance, which enhances understanding but does not elaborate on individual parameters.

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 clearly states 'Update an existing journal entry', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_journal or delete_journal.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., bulk_create_journals or update_task). No explicit when-not or exclusions are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.