Create a new shopping or to-do list on a Skylight frame by providing a label, hex color, and list kind. Use it to add family lists directly to the display.
Create a new list on a Skylight frame.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | List type (required). | |
| color | Yes | Hex color, e.g. #42D792 (required). | |
| label | Yes | ||
| 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"v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/no-destroy safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that – no note on frame targeting, required vs optional fields, uniqueness constraints, or what happens on failure.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is efficient. It is arguably under-specified rather than wasteful, but on the conciseness axis itself it is clean.
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 create/mutation tool with no output schema and only 50% parameter coverage, the description should at minimum clarify required inputs and target frame semantics. It leaves both the required-vs-optional distinction and the return/confirmation behavior unexplained.
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 description coverage is only 50%: 'kind' and 'color' are documented in the schema, but 'label' and 'frameId' have no descriptions anywhere. The phrase 'on a Skylight frame' vaguely gestures at frameId but gives no format or whether it is required, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a new list') and ties it to a Skylight frame, which distinguishes it from update_list/delete_list/list_lists siblings by action. It is clear but does not explicitly call out the sibling boundary (e.g., what 'create' means versus add_list_item).
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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling list tools (update_list, add_list_item, list_lists), and no preconditions such as needing a valid frameId or existing frame. The 'create' verb is the only signal, leaving usage to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.