Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
skylight-mcp

skylight-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

skylight_approve_user

Destructive

Approve a pending frame user to grant access to a frame. Requires confirmation: returns a preview naming the user and frame, then proceeds on repeat with confirmToken.

Instructions

Approve a pending frame user — grants them access to the frame. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE). The preview names the user and frame.

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": "skylight_approve_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
frameIdNo
confirmTokenNoONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.3.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmToken
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 \"confirmation-required\" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.1
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  4. First observedv0.4.6

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations flag this as destructive/open-world, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail the annotations cannot: it discloses that a confirmation is required, that a first call may return only a preview plus confirmToken, and that only a repeated call with that token proceeds. It also states the preview names the user and frame.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and consequence, then the confirmation mechanics. Every sentence addresses a distinct concern (purpose, confirmation prompt, token fallback, preview contents) with no filler.

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?

For a destructive, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the risky interaction flow thoroughly, including the elicitation fallback and return of a preview. It is slightly thin on disambiguating id vs frameId, but overall sufficient to invoke correctly.

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 only 33%; confirmToken is richly documented in the schema, but id and frameId have no schema descriptions. The phrase 'the preview names the user and frame' partially implies that id identifies the user and frameId the frame, so the description compensates somewhat but not fully.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Approve a pending frame user — grants them access to the frame.' No sibling performs this action (invite_user invites, remove_user revokes), so the tool is unambiguous without naming alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear invocation context by spelling out the confirmation flow (prompt where supported, otherwise preview+token), which an agent must understand to call it correctly. It does not, however, name when to use this versus sibling user-management 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