skylight-mcp

skylight_complete_chore_instance

Mark a specific occurrence of a recurring chore complete using its date and optional time or member, so Skylight Calendar chore tracking stays accurate.

Instructions

Mark a specific occurrence of a recurring chore complete.

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>",
      "instance_date": "<instance_date>"
    },
    "name": "skylight_complete_chore_instance"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`frameId`	No
`category_id`	No	Only for an up-for-grabs/shared chore: which member completed it. Omit for a normally-assigned chore (sending it 422s).
`instance_date`	Yes	YYYY-MM-DD occurrence date (required).
`instance_time`	No	HH:MM — only for a time-of-day routine with multiple daily occurrences.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.1Sep 19, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.7.1Aug 29, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / category_id / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  }
-]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / category_id / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number"
+]
```
First observedv0.4.6Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation, so safety is partly covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on what completing an occurrence triggers, whether it is reversible (skylight_uncomplete_chore exists), or any auth/error behavior. For a mutation tool this is thin.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though so terse it leaves the behavioral and parameter gaps unaddressed.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, five parameters, and only 60% schema description coverage needs more than one sentence. Key facts — which identifier 'id' refers to, whether the completion is reversible, and how it differs from skylight_complete_chore — are absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Three of five parameters are documented in the schema (category_id, instance_date, instance_time) but 'id' and 'frameId' are undocumented, and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. With schema coverage at 60% and no compensating detail, the description contributes nothing to parameter understanding.

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 specific verb (mark complete) and resource (a specific occurrence of a recurring chore), which implicitly separates it from skylight_complete_chore and skylight_uncomplete_chore. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or clarifying the difference in scope.

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 phrase 'specific occurrence of a recurring chore' implies the intended case, but no explicit when-to-use vs. skylight_complete_chore guidance, no mention of required permissions, and no exclusions are given. Usage is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server