luma-events-mcp

update_event

Update an existing Luma event by supplying its event ID and new values for title, description, start/end time, cover URL, or location.

Instructions

Update an existing Luma event.

Args:
    event_id: The unique identifier of the event to update (api_id)
    name: New title for the event (optional)
    description_md: New description in Markdown format for the event (optional)
    start_at: New start time in ISO 8601 format (optional)
    end_at: New end time in ISO 8601 format (optional)
    cover_url: New URL for the event cover image (optional)
    location: New event location (optional)

Returns:
    The updated event data or an error message

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`end_at`	No
`event_id`	Yes
`location`	No
`start_at`	No
`cover_url`	No
`description_md`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the update action and return ('updated event data or an error message'), but doesn't state whether this is a partial patch, what permissions are needed, or side effects on existing data. These are meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

One-line purpose, compact Args list, brief Returns line. No filler; all listed info adds value beyond the schema.

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?

Covers all parameters and return behavior, and an output schema exists for return shape. But lacks usage guidance, explicit patch semantics, and permission/error context; with no annotations, this leaves gaps for an agent deciding to call it.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains every parameter: event_id as api_id, name, description_md as Markdown, start_at/end_at as ISO 8601, cover_url as URL. It adds format and optionality meaning beyond schema titles. Location gets only 'New event location' without GeoAddress detail, so not perfect.

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?

States 'Update an existing Luma event' – a specific verb and resource. The word 'existing' differentiates it from create_event, and update vs get/list makes sibling distinctions evident. No ambiguity about what operation occurs.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. It doesn't mention that create_event is for new events or that get_event/list_events are for reads; usage is only implied by 'Update an existing'.

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

Deploy Server