jotae-mcp

update_event

Edit specific fields of an existing event by passing only the fields to change. Streamline event updates without resending full data.

Instructions

Edita campos de um evento existente. Passe apenas os campos que deseja alterar.

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": {
      "event_id": "<event_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	No
`status`	No
`cta_url`	No
`event_id`	Yes
`cta_label`	No
`event_end`	No
`pitch_end`	No
`cta_enabled`	No	Ativa ou desativa o CTA
`event_start`	No
`pitch_start`	No
`youtube_url`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.8Jun 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided; description indicates mutation ('edits') but lacks details on side effects, authorization, or behavior for unspecified fields. Partial update implication is present but not confirmed.

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, zero waste. First sentence states purpose, second gives actionable guidance. Appropriate length.

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?

Despite 11 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is very brief. Does not explain return value, field semantics, or validation constraints.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With only 9% schema description coverage (only cta_enabled has a description), the tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond names. Does not explain what fields represent or constraints.

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?

Description clearly states it edits an existing event (verb+resource) and distinguishes from create_event sibling by emphasizing existing events.

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?

Description provides clear instruction to pass only fields to change, implying partial update usage, but does not explicitly exclude when not to use or suggest alternatives.

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