skylight-mcp

skylight_list_nudges

Read-only

List reminders within a specified date range so you can review scheduled nudges for a Skylight Calendar family hub.

Instructions

List nudges (reminders) in a date range.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "after": "<after>",
      "before": "<before>"
    },
    "name": "skylight_list_nudges"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`after`	Yes	YYYY-MM-DD lower bound (required).
`before`	Yes	YYYY-MM-DD upper bound (required).
`frameId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.1Sep 19, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

First observedv0.4.6Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds only the date-range scoping constraint and says nothing about return format, pagination, or ordering, so it contributes modest context over the structured data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Nothing redundant or padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list tool this is minimally adequate, but with no output schema the description leaves the shape of a nudge, pagination behavior, and the meaning of frameId unexplained. It covers the basics and little more.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67%: after/before are fully documented with format and required status, but frameId has no description anywhere. The description's 'date range' phrasing merely restates the schema bounds and adds no meaning for the undocumented frameId.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (list) plus resource (nudges) and clarifies the term as reminders, with the date-range scope. It is distinguishable from siblings since no other tool targets nudges, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many other list_* tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description only says what the tool does; it offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and names no alternatives among the numerous sibling list tools. An agent gets no routing help.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server