Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

skylight-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

skylight_delete_chore

Destructive

Delete a chore, choosing to remove a single occurrence or the entire recurring series. For series deletion, confirm via a preview token to proceed safely.

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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the operation as destructive, and the description goes further by exposing the two-phase confirmation behavior: preview+confirmToken for clients without elicitation and a prompt where supported. This is meaningful context beyond readOnlyHint/destructiveHint, though it does not cover other side effects of series deletion.

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 tight and front-loaded with the core action, then adds the confirmation flow in a compact second sentence. The MCP_CONFIRM_MODE pointer adds a little jargon, but overall there is no filler.

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 delete with a two-step fallback, the description covers the critical call sequence, token usage, and scope behavior, and no output schema exists to carry return-value details. It leaves frameId's role unexplained, but the core invocation is sufficiently specified.

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?

The schema already documents apply_to and confirmToken in detail, and the description reinforces how apply_to 'all' triggers confirmation. However, id and frameId receive no description-level guidance, and with only 50% schema coverage the description only partially compensates for the undocumented parameters.

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?

The description names the exact operation and resource ('Delete a chore') and immediately narrows scope to a single occurrence or the whole series, which separates it from related chore tools like complete_chore or update_chore. This is a specific, unambiguous definition.

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 description clarifies the internal scope choice (one vs. all) and the confirmation requirement, but it never tells an agent when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as complete_chore, uncomplete_chore, or update_chore. The intended use case is implied by 'Delete a chore' rather than explicitly contrasted.

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