Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

skylight-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

skylight_delete_chore

Destructive

Delete a chore from Skylight Calendar, choosing one occurrence or the entire recurring series. Deleting all requires confirmation via prompt or a preview and confirmToken.

Instructions

Delete a chore (optionally a single occurrence or the whole series). apply_to 'all' 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).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
frameIdNo
apply_toNoFor a recurring chore: delete just this occurrence ("one") or the whole series ("all").
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 changedv1.0.1
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv0.8.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  4. First observedv0.4.6

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavior the annotations cannot convey: the confirmation prompt path, the two-step preview/confirmToken fallback, client-elicitation awareness, and the explicit 'never on the first call, never reused' constraint. This is exactly the extra context the bar asks for on a mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the confirmation semantics in a compact parenthetical flow. Slightly dense, but each clause (apply_to scope, elicitation fallback, confirmToken rule) earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the destructive-confirmation lifecycle thoroughly and the annotations cover safety hints. Minor gaps remain on which entities the id/frameId refer to and any error/edge behavior, but an agent can call this correctly from the text provided.

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 description coverage is 50%, and the schema itself already documents apply_to and confirmToken in depth (including the two-step usage warning). The description largely restates apply_to behavior and gives no meaning for the undocumented id/frameId fields, so it adds only marginal value over the structured schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a chore') plus the sub-scope ('optionally a single occurrence or the whole series'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like skylight_complete_chore, skylight_uncomplete_chore, and skylight_update_chore.

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?

Gives concrete procedural guidance for the destructive path (apply_to 'all' triggers confirmation; fallback is preview + confirmToken on repeat call), which is useful when-to-call context. However, it never contrasts this tool with alternatives such as completing vs. deleting, nor states prerequisites like ownership/permissions, so the selection guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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