Remove a message or photo from a Skylight Calendar frame. Specify the message ID and optional frame ID to delete it from the device.
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 indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds little beyond restating that the operation deletes. It does not disclose consequences such as whether related comments, likes, or album associations are also removed, nor whether deletion is idempotent. With the annotations carrying the safety profile, the description contributes minimal behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single short sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is efficient and front-loads the verb and object. The slight ambiguity of 'message/photo' costs it a perfect score, but overall it is appropriately concise.
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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description should at least explain the relationship between 'id' and 'frameId' and note any side effects. It does neither. The presence of skylight_delete_messages also makes the lack of scope clarification a meaningful gap. An agent operating from this description alone would be under-informed.
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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It identifies that 'id' refers to a frame message/photo, but it does not clarify the meaning or purpose of the optional 'frameId' parameter, nor whether 'id' is a message ID or photo ID. This leaves significant ambiguity for a two-parameter tool.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a frame message/photo.' This makes the core operation clear. However, it does not distinguish this singular delete from the sibling tool skylight_delete_messages, so an agent cannot easily tell them apart without additional inference.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as skylight_delete_messages, skylight_get_message, or skylight_list_messages. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess when this specific tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.