Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

skylight-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

skylight_delete_meal

Destructive

Delete a planned meal from a Skylight Calendar meal plan, choosing one occurrence, this and future, or the entire series. No undo; future/all require confirmation.

Instructions

Remove a planned meal (meal sitting) from the meal plan. Deletes one occurrence, this-and-future occurrences, or the whole series depending on apply_to. There is no undo. apply_to 'future' or 'all' asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview of exactly what would be deleted and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE). apply_to 'one' deletes directly.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesMeal sitting id (from skylight_list_meals).
frameIdNo
apply_toYesRecurrence scope: 'one' = just this occurrence (splits it out of the series), 'future' = this and all later occurrences (splits the tail into a new sitting), 'all' = the whole series.
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.
instance_dateYesYYYY-MM-DD of the occurrence to act on — must be one of that sitting's `instances`.

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. Addedv0.8.1

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds rich context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: explicit 'no undo', the split semantics of 'one'/'future', and the full confirmation/confirmToken two-step flow with MCP_CONFIRM_MODE reference. This substantially exceeds what annotations convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads purpose, then scope behavior, then the critical no-undo and confirmation caveat. Four tight sentences with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Destructive mutation with no output schema is fully covered: what gets deleted per mode, irreversibility, and the exact two-phase confirmation protocol. An agent can call this correctly without further inference.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 80%, so the schema does most work, but the description reinforces apply_to semantics and the confirmation flow beyond the schema's enum description. id, instance_date, and confirmToken are documented in the 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 ('Remove') and resource ('a planned meal (meal sitting)') and immediately explains scoping via apply_to, distinguishing it from siblings like skylight_update_meal and skylight_plan_meal.

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?

Clearly explains how the three apply_to values behave and when confirmation is triggered, but does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., skylight_update_meal for modifying rather than removing). Context for when to use each apply_to mode is clear.

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