Akiflow MCP Server

add-event

Create a new calendar event that syncs with your source calendar. Specify title, start and end times, and optional location or description.

Instructions

Create a new calendar event. Syncs to the source calendar (Google, etc.)

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "calendar_id": "<calendar_id>",
      "start_datetime": "<start_datetime>",
      "end_datetime": "<end_datetime>"
    },
    "name": "add-event"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	Event title (required)
`calendar_id`	Yes	Calendar UUID (use get-calendars to find)
`start_datetime`	Yes	Start time (ISO 8601)
`end_datetime`	Yes	End time (ISO 8601)
`description`	No	Event description
`location`	No	Event location
`all_day`	No	All-day event

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1May 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It mentions syncing to the source calendar, which indicates a side effect, but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error behavior, or irreversible consequences of creation.

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 effectively convey the core purpose and syncing behavior. No redundancy or unnecessary information; the description is front-loaded and compact.

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 good schema coverage, the description lacks essential context for a mutation tool: no mention of required permissions, event constraints (e.g., start before end), or error handling. It does not compensate for the missing annotations.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide (e.g., 'calendar_id' hints at 'use get-calendars') in the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and resource 'a new calendar event', and adds syncing behavior. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add-task' by specifying a different resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from 'edit-event' or others.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edit-event' or 'add-task'. The description only states the action without providing context for selection criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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