SendIt

Update Calendar Event

update_calendar_event

Idempotent

Update one calendar event by rescheduling it, changing status, reassigning it, or storing metadata.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Compatibility alias for eventId.
`postId`	No	Compatibility alias when the calendar event maps directly to a scheduled post.
`status`	No	Updated event status.
`eventId`	No	Calendar event ID or backing scheduled post ID.
`team_id`	No	Team ID to operate in team scope. Get available teams with list_teams. If omitted, uses personal scope.
`metadata`	No	Optional event metadata patch.
`assigneeId`	No	Optional assignee user ID.
`scheduledAt`	No	Updated ISO 8601 schedule time for the event.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedMay 7, 2026

removedInput schema / anyOf

Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "eventId"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "id"
-    ]
-  },
-  {
-    "required": [
-      "postId"
-    ]
-  }
-]

First observedMay 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about update categories but does not disclose deeper behavioral traits like partial update semantics or effect on existing event data. This falls in line with the baseline for tools with annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that lists the purpose and key operations without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and wastes no words.

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?

Given the rich parameter schema and annotations, the description covers the core intent well. It does not address return values (no output schema), but the absence of output schema and the presence of comprehensive parameter descriptions make the description adequate for an update tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description merely summarizes categories (rescheduling, status, assignee, metadata) that are already present in the schema, adding no new meaning beyond a high-level grouping.

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?

The description clearly states the action 'Update' with the specific resource 'one calendar event' and enumerates the types of updates: rescheduling, changing status, reassigning, storing metadata. The word 'one' distinguishes it from sibling tools like bulk_update_calendar_events, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for single event updates but does not explicitly provide when-to-use vs alternatives. It lacks a direct reference to bulk_update_calendar_events or other sibling tools, so the guidance is only implicit through the word 'one'.

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

All SendIt tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

With 148 tools, there is significant overlap. For example, generate_content, publish_ai, generate_post_bundle, and request_project_content all generate content; get_analytics, get_unified_analytics, get_post_analytics, get_ad_performance, and get_unified_ad_report all fetch performance metrics; and list_inbox vs list_conversations blur comment and conversation management. Descriptions help, but boundaries between tools are often unclear.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_teams, create_goal, delete_post), but there are notable deviations: create_library_item vs save_to_library, publish_content vs publish_ai, schedule_content vs schedule_content_advanced, and connect_platform vs connect_connector. Mixed prefixes like 'autopilot_', 'check_', and 'get_' are fine, but overlapping verbs and a hyphen in 'connect_linkedin-page' reduce consistency.

Tool Count1/5

148 tools is extreme for any server. Even for a broad social media management platform, this is far beyond what an agent can effectively navigate. The count is unwieldy and suggests the surface should be split into multiple focused servers (publishing, analytics, connectors, workflows, etc.).

Completeness3/5

The core social publishing workflow is well covered (create, schedule, publish, edit, delete, retry), and there are extensive features for analytics, workflows, connectors, and AI agents. However, some resources have CRUD gaps: no update/delete for brand voices, no delete_project, no update/delete for Product Hunt goals, and no explicit get_workflow. These are workable but notable omissions.

Resources

Need Help?