Retrieve the list of members (frame_users) for a specified Skylight frame using its frameId. Use it to see who belongs to a frame before managing access or assignments.
List members (frame_users) of a Skylight frame.
| 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination behavior, no auth/permission requirements, and no indication of what happens when frameId is omitted (the schema marks it optional).
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical '(frame_users)' is the only slightly redundant element, but it usefully names the underlying entity.
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 no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description should at minimum explain the frameId argument and whether it is optional. It leaves the agent guessing about inputs and results for a read tool.
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 the single frameId parameter is undocumented in the description as well. The word 'frame' hints that frameId identifies the target, but no format, requiredness, or default behavior is explained, so the description does not 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 (members/frame_users) scoped to a Skylight frame, which separates it from the sibling skylight_list_frames. It does not, however, distinguish it from skylight_resolve_member or skylight_list_avatars, both of which also read member data.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus skylight_list_frames, skylight_resolve_member, or any other member-related sibling. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'of a Skylight frame'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.