Akiflow MCP Server

edit-event

Edit a calendar event and sync changes to your connected calendar (Google, Outlook, etc.).

Instructions

Edit a calendar event. Changes sync back 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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "edit-event"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Event UUID
`title`	No
`description`	No
`location`	No
`start_datetime`	No	Start time (ISO 8601)
`end_datetime`	No	End time (ISO 8601)
`all_day`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1May 29, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only mentions that changes sync back, indicating persistence, but lacks disclosure of other behavioral traits like recurrence handling, permission requirements, or potential side effects. The description is insufficient for full transparency.

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?

The description is extremely concise with two short sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no extraneous information.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a complex tool with 7 parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, constraints, or prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for the agent to operate safely and effectively.

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?

Schema coverage is low (43%), with only 3 of 7 parameters described ('id', 'start_datetime', 'end_datetime'). The description adds no extra meaning for the undocumented parameters (title, description, location, all_day), failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'Edit a calendar event' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add-event' by implying modification rather than creation, but does not explicitly differentiate from other 'edit' siblings like 'edit-task'.

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 description provides implicit context ('Changes sync back to the source calendar') which suggests when to use it, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives (e.g., 'add-event' for new events, 'edit-task' for tasks). No when-not-to-use instructions.

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