List AI-drafted calendar events awaiting review before approval; for meal or activity engines, use the items tool since drafts are items, not events.
List the events an AI intent drafted (for review before approving). For meal/activity engines the drafts are items, not events — use skylight_list_auto_creation_items instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| 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"v0.7.1Input schema / properties / id / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / id / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]v0.4.6Does 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 meaningful context beyond that: the results are unapproved drafts awaiting review, and the unit returned (events vs items) depends on the engine type. It stops short of describing pagination or result ordering.
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?
Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded and the sibling-routing caveat follows immediately after.
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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the annotations and description cover safety and semantics reasonably well, but the two undocumented parameters — especially what 'id' identifies and what frameId scopes — leave a real gap an agent must guess at.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and neither of the two parameters (id, frameId) is described in the schema. The description only weakly implies that 'id' refers to an auto-creation intent and says nothing about frameId or the string|number union, so it fails to compensate for the coverage 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 verb ('List') and resource ('events an AI intent drafted'), plus the purpose ('for review before approving'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling skylight_list_auto_creation_items, so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.
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?
Provides a clear routing rule: for meal/activity engines the drafts are items, so use skylight_list_auto_creation_items instead. That is explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative guidance, but it does not say when-not to call it or what preconditions (e.g. a valid pending intent id) are required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.