Add messages or photos to albums by supplying album IDs and message IDs, enabling quick organization of content.
Add messages/photos to albums.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| frameId | No | ||
| album_ids | Yes | ||
| message_ids | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.7.1Input schema / properties / album_ids / items / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / album_ids / items / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]Input schema / properties / message_ids / items / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / message_ids / items / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false), but the description adds no behavioral detail: no mention of duplicate handling, idempotency, album existence requirements, or side effects. The phrase 'messages/photos' is vague about what types of items can be added.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. It earns its place, though it sacrifices important detail for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no output schema and three parameters, this description is significantly under-specified. It omits the role of frameId, any prerequisites, behavior when adding duplicates, and relation to sibling album operations, making it hard for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0% and no prose in the input schema, the description must compensate. It maps 'albums' to album_ids and 'messages/photos' to message_ids, offering a minimal connection, but it does not clarify frameId or the format/semantics of the IDs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('albums'), making the core action clear. However, it does not differentiate from closely related siblings like skylight_copy_messages_to_frames or skylight_remove_from_album, so an agent still must infer the exact boundary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as skylight_upload_photo, skylight_copy_messages_to_frames, or skylight_create_album. The single sentence gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.