Skip to main content
Glama
thenavidm

Calendly MCP Server

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Update Event Type

update_event_type
Destructive

Modify an existing Calendly event type's name, color, description, duration, locations, or active status. Set confirm=true to apply the requested change.

Instructions

Update Event Type. Changes Calendly state and requires confirm=true for the specific requested action. Required scopes: event_types:write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoThe event type name
colorNoThe hexadecimal color value of the event type's scheduling page
activeNoIndicates if the event type is active or not
localeNoThe locale on the event type, used to determine the language of the event type's scheduling page
accountNoNamed private Calendly account; selects credentials, not an organization URI.
confirmNoMust be true for the specific user-requested write.
payloadNoComplete JSON request body instead of body flags. Supports nested booking, contact, availability and nullable fields.
durationNoThe length of sessions booked with this event type. Must be one of the duration options if they're provided.
locationsNoConfiguration information for each possible location for this Event Type
descriptionNoThe event type description
payload_fileNoRegular local JSON body file, at most 5 MB. Cannot be mixed with body flags or payload.
event_type_uuidYes
duration_optionsNoA maximum of 4 unique options is allowed. Each option must be >= 1 and <= 720.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds the confirm=true guard requirement and the required scope (event_types:write), which are useful beyond annotations, but doesn't explain what gets overwritten or side effects.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action. The 'specific requested action' phrasing is slightly cryptic but overall tight and scannable.

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?

A 13-parameter mutation tool with nested payload support and no output schema warrants more explanation of request body modes (payload vs payload_file vs flags) and the confirm guard's exact semantics. The description leaves the agent to infer the write-guard mechanics.

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 92%, so parameters are well-documented in structured data. The description adds only the confirm guard and scope, not field-level meaning beyond the schema. 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 clear verb+resource ('Update Event Type'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_event_type and get_event_type. However, it doesn't enumerate which fields are updatable or differentiate from update_event_type_availability_schedules.

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 guidance or alternatives named. The confirm=true requirement hints at a write-guard pattern but doesn't explain when the tool should or shouldn't be invoked versus create_event_type or availability schedule tools.

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