Dayze MCP

Update Event (calendar patch)

update_event

Update an existing calendar event you own by providing its event_id and any fields to change, such as title, date, time, location, or people. Invalid or unauthorized event IDs return an error without creating a new event.

Instructions

MUTATES one existing calendar event the authenticated user owns. Required: event_id (UUID). Optional patch (same fields as log_event): title, date / event_date, time / event_time, end_date, end_time, location, description, category, external_url, people / with / person_ids. Unknown or other-user event_id returns an error and does not create a row. For food-diary meals, prefer update_food (it syncs the mirrored event). Rebuilds life_state. Requires API key or OAuth with scope context. Share tokens cannot write. ($0.10; API key required)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`date`	No	Alias for event_date.
`time`	No	Alias for event_time.
`with`	No	Alias for people.
`title`	No	Updated title (replaces). Cannot be empty.
`people`	No	People names or person UUIDs to add (event_people role=with). Does not remove existing tags.
`category`	No	e.g. funeral, family, work, travel. Stored as events.category and event_type.
`end_date`	No	Optional end date YYYY-MM-DD (all-day multi-day).
`end_time`	No	Optional end time (same formats as event_time).
`event_id`	Yes	UUID of a calendar event the authenticated user owns
`location`	No	Empty or null clears
`event_date`	No	Start date YYYY-MM-DD, YYYY-MM, or YYYY. Alias: date.
`event_time`	No	Start time: 8pm, 20:00, or 20:00:00. Empty or null clears. Alias: time.
`person_ids`	No	Owned person UUIDs to tag (user-scoped).
`request_id`	No	Client idempotency key (retries return original result).
`description`	No	Empty or null clears
`person_name`	No
`external_url`	No
`people_names`	No
`date_precision`	No	Soft date precision stored in metadata.
`idempotency_key`	No	Alias for request_id.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`event`	Yes	A Dayze calendar event record.
`changed`	Yes	Changed fields with before and after values.
`people_tagged`	Yes
`unresolved_people`	Yes
`life_state_rebuilt`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.28.0Sep 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare non-readOnly, non-destructive. The description adds critical behavior the agent cannot infer: it errors instead of upserting/creating a row, it rebuilds life_state as a side effect, it requires API key or OAuth scope, share tokens are rejected, and it costs $0.10.

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-loads the mutation verb and required param, then layers patch fields, error semantics, side effects, and auth/cost. Field enumeration is long but information-dense; only the field list borders on restating the schema.

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 20-param mutation tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description still covers purpose, required param, error behavior, side effects, auth scopes, cost, and the sibling alternative. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 85%, and the schema itself documents the aliases, clearing semantics ('empty or null clears'), and formats. The description mostly re-lists those same field names ('title, date / event_date, time / event_time...'), adding modest framing ('same fields as log_event') but no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and scope ('MUTATES one existing calendar event the authenticated user owns'), which cleanly separates it from log_event (create), delete_event (remove), and update_food (meal sync). The required event_id is named up front.

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?

Explicitly routes food-diary meals to update_food and states the failure condition for unknown or other-user event_id. Doesn't state a when-to-use contrast against log_event or commit_life_update, but the alternative routing plus the error semantics cover the main selection decision.

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

Deploy Server