Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

skylight-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

skylight_create_reward

Create a reward in Skylight by specifying name, point value, and category IDs. Optionally set description and respawn-on-redemption.

Instructions

Create a reward (live-verified fields: name + description + point_value + respawn_on_redemption + category_ids).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesReward name.
frameIdNo
descriptionNo
point_valueYesPoints required to redeem (required).
category_idsYesFamily-member category ids this reward applies to (required).
respawn_on_redemptionNoIf true, the reward can be redeemed repeatedly (respawns after redemption).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.7.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / category_ids / items / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / category_ids / items / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number"
+]
  3. First observedv0.4.6

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate that this is a mutable operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that—it does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, validation behavior, or response format. The term 'live-verified' is vague and unexplained, adding no concrete transparency.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the verb and resource. It is appropriately concise, though the 'live-verified fields' jargon slightly undermines clarity. Overall, it wastes minimal words but could benefit from simpler language.

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?

With no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return value or side effects, but it does not. It also does not mention required vs optional fields (though the schema covers that), nor does it explain the 'live-verified' concept. For a creation tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema descriptions cover 67% of parameters (name, point_value, category_ids, respawn_on_redemption have descriptions; frameId and description do not). The tool description simply lists these field names without explaining their meaning or usage, so it adds no value beyond the schema. It also fails to clarify the two undocumented parameters, which the schema does not cover either.

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?

The description clearly states 'Create a reward' as a specific verb+resource, making the primary action unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like skylight_update_reward or skylight_delete_reward, but the verb 'create' already sets it apart. The phrase 'live-verified fields' adds minor ambiguity but does not obscure the core purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the existence of skylight_update_reward and skylight_delete_reward, it would be helpful to state that this is for creating new rewards only, but the description is silent on when-not-to-use and alternative routes.

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