skylight-mcp

skylight_get_reward

Read-only

Retrieve a specific reward by ID from Skylight Calendar family hub for display or management.

Instructions

Get one reward.

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_reward"
  }
}

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 readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that – no note on error behavior for an unknown id, no indication of what a frameId scopes, and no return-shape context – so it contributes essentially no behavioral value.

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?

The four-word sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, which is structurally sound. However, it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, so it earns only a minimum-viable score.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a tool with two parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description should compensate by explaining how to identify the reward and what comes back. It supplies none of that, leaving the definition effectively unusable without guessing.

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 never mentions either parameter. With two parameters (required 'id' and optional 'frameId') completely undocumented in both the schema and the description, the agent has no guidance on the identifier format or on when frameId matters.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a clear verb and resource ('Get ... reward'), so an agent knows it retrieves a single reward object rather than listing, creating, or deleting one. It does not differentiate itself from the close sibling skylight_list_rewards or explain how the target reward is identified, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative skylight_list_rewards even though that sibling covers the related 'get many rewards' case. The agent must infer that this is the single-item fetch from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server