Approve AI-drafted events to add them to your Skylight calendar as confirmed events.
Approve AI-drafted events — turns them into real calendar events.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Auto-creation intent id. | |
| ids | Yes | Draft event ids to approve into real events. | |
| frameId | No |
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 / id / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / id / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]Input schema / properties / ids / items / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / ids / items / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to repeat that. It adds that it converts drafts to real events, which is beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects on the draft itself, any required permissions, or irreversibility.
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, concise sentence that clearly states the action and effect. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to scan.
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 operation without an output schema, the description fails to mention expected return values, prerequisites (e.g., existence of drafts), or post-conditions. It also lacks guidance on the relationship to related auto-creation tools.
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?
Schema explains id and ids, but frameId has no description. The tool description adds no parameter information beyond the schema, so it does not compensate for the undocumented frameId or clarify the relationship between id and 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?
States a clear verb ('Approve') and resource ('AI-drafted events') and the effect ('turns them into real calendar events'). This distinguishes it from related tools like skylight_undo_auto_creation, which performs the opposite action.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention that it should be used after reviewing drafts, or contrast with undo or list drafts. The description lacks context on the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.