Remove a message or photo from a Skylight Calendar frame by ID, optionally specifying a frame, to manage family hub content.
Delete a frame message/photo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| frameId | No |
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 / id / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / id / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing beyond that — no statement about permanence, recoverability, or required permissions for this destructive operation.
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 short sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps noted elsewhere rather than being a structural flaw.
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 delete with 0% schema coverage, two undocumented parameters, and no output schema, the description is too thin — it never clarifies the id/frameId roles or how this differs from the bulk delete sibling.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all — the distinction between 'id' (required message identifier) and 'frameId' (optional frame scope) is left entirely undocumented in both places.
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 (frame message/photo), which is clearer than a bare name restatement. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling skylight_delete_messages (plural/bulk), leaving the singular-vs-bulk boundary ambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus skylight_delete_messages, skylight_delete_album, or other delete siblings, and no prerequisites or irreversibility warnings. Usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.