Create a new shopping or to-do list on a Skylight frame. Specify a label, color, and list type to organize tasks or groceries directly on your 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 only disclose readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description must carry behavioral context. It only restates the creation action and adds 'on a Skylight frame', but says nothing about idempotency, duplicate labels, required frame context, or side effects. The phrase also creates ambiguity because frameId is not a required schema property.
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?
One short, focused sentence with no unnecessary words. It is easy to parse and front-loads the core action.
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?
Given a create operation with 4 parameters (3 required), an enum, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It leaves the agent without guidance on label format, frameId necessity, or what the tool returns. The schema covers only half the parameters, and the description does not fill the gap.
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 documented; label and frameId undocumented). The description adds almost no parameter meaning, aside from a weak hint that frameId relates to a Skylight frame. It does not explain label expectations or frameId's optionality.
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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('list') with a location ('Skylight frame'), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like skylight_create_task or skylight_create_reward. The resource type is unambiguous.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like skylight_update_list, skylight_add_list_item, or even other create tools. There is no mention of preconditions (e.g., needing an existing frame) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.