Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
safiyu

kontexta

by safiyu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

calendar_entities_update

Patch an existing calendar entity's fields, including name, notes, timezone, and active status. Set active to false to retire it without losing history.

Instructions

SIDE-EFFECTFUL. Patch an existing entity's fields, including active (set false to soft-retire it without losing its history). Idempotent per patch. Returns {entity}. For a hard delete see calendar_entities_delete.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesEntity id (from `calendar_entities_add` or `calendar_entities_list`).
kindNoFreeform category, e.g. 'server', 'vehicle', 'location'.
nameNoNew display name for the entity.
notesNoFreeform notes.
activeNoSet false to soft-retire the entity without losing history.
timezoneNoIANA timezone for display purposes (e.g. 'Europe/Berlin').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv6.1.2

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it flags SIDE-EFFECTFUL, states idempotency ('Idempotent per patch'), describes the soft-retire semantics of `active`, and gives the return shape. It omits auth/permission requirements and any rate-limit or concurrency notes, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Four terse, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the side-effect warning leads and the sibling pointer trails. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the safety signal, idempotency, return shape, and the delete alternative. Missing only permission/auth context, which an agent might still need.

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 the baseline is 3. The description highlights `active`'s soft-retire behavior, but that meaning is already documented in the schema property, so it adds little beyond the structured field.

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?

Specific verb ('Patch') plus resource ('an existing entity's fields') with the required `id` implied. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the delete sibling, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Names the hard-delete alternative (`calendar_entities_delete`) and states the soft-retire use case via `active`. It stops short of clarifying patch-vs-add boundaries or partial-update expectations, but the main routing decision is covered.

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