Delete multiple items from a Skylight list in one call by specifying the list ID and the item IDs to remove. Use it to clear or clean up list entries in bulk.
Bulk-delete specific list items.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| listId | Yes | ||
| frameId | No | ||
| item_ids | Yes | List-item ids to delete. |
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"v0.7.1Input schema / properties / item_ids / items / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / item_ids / items / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on irreversibility, required permissions, or partial-failure behavior — so it earns little credit over the structured data.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the gaps elsewhere rather than being a deliberate, complete statement.
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?
For a destructive mutation tool with no output schema and two undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. It omits what happens to the list, whether frameId is required in some contexts, and any confirmation of the effect.
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 coverage is only 33%: item_ids is documented in the schema, but listId and frameId carry no description anywhere. The one-line description does nothing to compensate for those two undocumented parameters.
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?
States a specific verb (delete) and resource (list items) with the 'bulk' qualifier that implicitly distinguishes it from the singular sibling skylight_delete_list_item. An agent can tell what it does, though it never names the sibling it differs from.
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 on when to use this bulk variant versus skylight_delete_list_item, skylight_clear_list, or skylight_move_list_item. It implies you already hold item ids ('specific') but never states prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.