skylight-mcp

skylight_get_calendar

Read-only

Fetch a single Skylight calendar account by ID to access its details for event and schedule management.

Instructions

Get one calendar account.

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_get_calendar"
  }
}

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

C2.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavior beyond that: no note on what is returned, whether a missing/inaccessible calendar errors, or any scope constraint. It essentially repeats the read semantics the annotations provide.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, so it is structurally clean and front-loaded. However, the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than genuine concision, similar to a near-tautological stub.

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 lookup tool with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description should at minimum identify what the id refers to and what the result contains. Nothing about return shape, id semantics, or error behavior is present, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it.

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% for two parameters. The description never mentions 'id' or 'frameId', leaving it unclear whether the id is a calendar id, a source calendar id, or something frame-scoped, and what frameId disambiguates. No value is added over the bare schema.

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?

States a verb and resource ('Get one calendar account'), which is more specific than a bare title, but 'calendar account' is ambiguous given siblings like skylight_list_source_calendars and skylight_update_calendar. It does not clarify whether this retrieves a source calendar, a device calendar, or frame-associated calendar settings.

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 guidance on when to call this versus skylight_list_calendars (to enumerate) or skylight_get_frame. The 'one' hints at single-item retrieval, but nothing states prerequisites or when-not-to-use alternatives.

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

Deploy Server