Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
macos-agent-bridge

macos-agent-bridge

by juliusloon
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

calendar_update_event

Idempotent

Update one calendar event occurrence by its native ID, including title, times, location, or notes, without modifying the entire recurring series.

Instructions

Update one occurrence of an event by native ID. Recurring series are not bulk modified. [v1.0.0; permissions: calendar]

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "_idempotencyKey": "<_idempotencyKey>"
    },
    "name": "calendar_update_event"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesStable native object ID
endNoISO 8601 date-time with explicit Z or numeric UTC offset
notesNoNotes
startNoISO 8601 date-time with explicit Z or numeric UTC offset
titleNoTitle
locationNoLocation
timezoneNoIANA time zone, e.g. Asia/Shanghai
calendarIdNoWritable Calendar ID; omit for default calendar
_approvalIdNoID of the exact action approved by a human in the macOS Agent Bridge extension
_idempotencyKeyYesClient-generated unique key, required for writes; reuse only with identical arguments, including while waiting for approval

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes
toolYestool name
errorYes
statusYes
versionYessemantic version

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds the recurring-series scoping behavior and the required 'calendar' permission, which are genuine additions not covered by annotations. It does not describe what happens to unspecified fields or any rate/permission failure behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences with the operation and scope front-loaded, plus a compact permission/version tag. No filler, though the bracketed tag is slightly meta rather than task-oriented.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description needn't explain returns. With complete parameter documentation and an explicit permission requirement, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only sibling routing is left implicit.

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 100%, so every one of the 10 parameters is documented in the schema itself (including _idempotencyKey reuse rules and calendarId defaulting). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the 'native ID' phrasing, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Update one occurrence of an event') and its scope ('by native ID'), which clearly separates it from calendar_create_event and calendar_delete_event. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 line 'Recurring series are not bulk modified' implies the tool operates on a single occurrence rather than a whole series, which is useful scoping. However, it never states when to choose this over calendar_create_event/calendar_delete_event, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions beyond that hint.

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