skylight-mcp

skylight_delete_recipe

Destructive

Delete a meal recipe from Skylight Calendar by its ID. Use to remove recipes no longer needed from meal planning.

Instructions

Delete a meal recipe.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "skylight_delete_recipe"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`frameId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.1Sep 19, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

First observedv0.4.6Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does 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 covered. The description adds nothing beyond that - it does not say whether the deletion is permanent, whether meals referencing the recipe are affected, or what happens if the id is missing.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single short sentence with zero filler and the action is front-loaded, so there is no wasted prose. However, at four words it is under-specified rather than optimally concise for a destructive two-parameter tool.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive mutation with 0% schema coverage, an undocumented optional parameter, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot verify the scope of the deletion or the meaning of 'frameId' from the available information.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and does not. It never explains what 'id' identifies or what the optional 'frameId' is for on a recipe-deletion call, which is a genuinely non-obvious parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a verb (delete) and resource (meal recipe), but it is nearly a restatement of the tool name 'skylight_delete_recipe'. The only added information is the word 'meal', and it offers no differentiation from sibling tools like skylight_delete_meal or skylight_update_recipe, so an agent gets minimal help narrowing the choice.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as skylight_update_recipe or skylight_delete_meal. The agent is left to infer the tool's role entirely from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server