Retrieve reward-point balances for each family member, including lifetime points earned and current totals, to track progress in the Skylight Calendar family hub.
Get reward-point balances per family member (lifetime earned + current balance).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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"v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are per family member and include lifetime earned and current balance, which is useful return context, but it does not describe auth, pagination, or optional frame behavior.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the operation, grouping, and returned fields efficiently.
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 simple read tool, the description covers purpose and output fields, but it omits the optional frameId parameter's role and any routing guidance versus related reward tools. The annotations cover read-only safety, so the remaining gaps are modest but real.
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?
The schema has one parameter, frameId, with 0% description coverage, and the description never explains or even mentions it. The phrase 'per family member' does not clarify what frameId does, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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?
States a specific read operation and resource: reward-point balances per family member, including lifetime earned and current balance. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_reward (single reward definition) and list_rewards (reward catalog), though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description does not mention alternatives such as list_rewards or add_reward_points, nor does it state prerequisites or contexts for choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.