Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

skylight-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

skylight_get_auto_creation_intent

Read-only

Retrieve the status and draft results of an AI auto-creation intent using its ID. Get pending or completed AI-generated calendar entries for review.

Instructions

Get an AI auto-creation intent (its status + draft results).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
frameIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.7.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / id / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number"
+]
  3. First observedv0.4.6

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only behavior is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the response includes both status and draft results, which is valuable since there is no output schema.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical efficiently adds the key detail about what is returned.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read-only get-by-ID tool, the description covers the core purpose and return contents. The main gap is the unexplained frameId parameter, but it is optional, so the description is still largely sufficient for invoking the tool correctly.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning or usage of either parameter. 'id' is highly generic, and 'frameId' is completely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess what these values should be.

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?

The description uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (AI auto-creation intent), and clarifies the return scope as 'status + draft results.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_auto_creation_intents, which list intents rather than retrieve one.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the singular 'Get an AI auto-creation intent' — the agent can infer this is for fetching one specific intent by ID. However, the description does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over list_auto_creation_intents or how it relates to approve/undo auto-creation tools.

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