Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
skylight-mcp

skylight-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

skylight_delete_list

Destructive

Delete a Skylight list and every item in it permanently; non-empty lists require confirmation before removal.

Instructions

Delete a Skylight list and every item in it — permanent. When the list has items, 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). The preview names the list and every item that would go, and the token binds that exact set. An empty list is deleted directly.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "listId": "<listId>"
    },
    "name": "skylight_delete_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
listIdYes
frameIdNo
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. Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.3
    • 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. 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 only declare destructive=true; the description goes far beyond that, spelling out permanence, the confirmation protocol, what the preview contains ('names the list and every item that would go'), what the token binds, and that the token must never be invented or reused. This is exactly the extra behavioral context an agent needs for an irreversible operation.

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 destructive scope and permanence are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the confirmation mechanics. It is dense but each sentence carries necessary protocol detail; the parenthetical '(see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE)' is a reasonable pointer rather than padding.

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 risky flow well: confirmation, preview, token semantics, and the empty-list shortcut. Remaining gaps are the meaning of frameId and what a phase-1 preview response looks like structurally, though the description does describe its contents.

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 coverage is only 33%: listId and frameId are undocumented in both schema and description. The description does explain the role of confirmToken and its relationship to MCP_CONFIRM_MODE, matching the schema's own note, but it adds no meaning for the two undocumented identifiers.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope: 'Delete a Skylight list and every item in it — permanent.' An agent immediately knows this removes the container, not just its contents. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like skylight_clear_list or skylight_delete_list_items, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear operational context: confirmation is requested when the list has items, and an empty list is deleted directly. It explains the two paths (elicitation vs. token fallback) so the agent knows what to do on the first call. It stops short of saying when to choose this tool over clear_list or delete_list_items.

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