Retrieve all lists on a Skylight frame by frame ID to view every list tied to that family hub.
List all lists on a Skylight frame.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "skylight_list_lists"
}
}| 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 structurally. The description adds nothing beyond the annotations: no note on pagination, return shape, or whether frameId is optional/defaulted.
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 short sentence with no wasted words and the salient information front-loaded. It is efficient, though brevity here comes at the cost of substance rather than being tight-fisted.
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 with annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, the ambiguity around the optional frameId and the absence of any guidance on the returned collection leaves an agent with gaps that a slightly longer description could close.
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 parameter frameId is completely undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase 'on a Skylight frame' hints at frame scoping but never states whether frameId is required, optional, or what happens when omitted (required parameters = 0).
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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('all lists on a Skylight frame'), so an agent understands this is a read of the list collection. It is distinguishable from siblings like skylight_get_list_items or skylight_create_list, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of related siblings such as skylight_get_list_items, skylight_list_items, or per-list operations. The agent must infer usage 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.