List AI-drafted events for review before approving list auto-creation. Validate or discard intent-generated changes to keep your Skylight lists accurate.
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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the read-only safety profile, and the description reinforces it with 'List'. It adds useful workflow context ('for review before approving') and scoping behavior (events vs items), but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or behavior when no drafts exist. With annotations covering the core safety aspect, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loading the main action and immediately providing the sibling distinction. No extraneous words or repetition.
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?
With two parameters, zero parameter documentation, and no output schema, the description needs to do more. It explains purpose and sibling routing, but the missing parameter semantics and return behavior leave the agent under-equipped to invoke the tool correctly.
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%, so the description must explain the parameters to compensate. It does not mention `id` or `frameId` at all, leaving the agent unable to infer what they represent or how to construct a correct call. This is a critical 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?
The description states a specific action ('List') on a specific resource ('events an AI intent drafted') and adds the workflow purpose ('for review before approving'). It also explicitly distinguishes this tool from the sibling skylight_list_auto_creation_items by noting that meal/activity engines use items instead.
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?
It provides an explicit when-not and alternative: 'For meal/activity engines the drafts are items, not events — use skylight_list_auto_creation_items instead.' This clearly routes the agent to the correct sibling for a defined condition. The 'for review before approving' phrase also signals when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.