Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
skylight-mcp

skylight-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

skylight_list_recipes

Read-only

List meal recipes for a Skylight Calendar frame using a frameId, so you can view and plan meals on the device.

Instructions

List meal recipes for the frame.

Tool call template

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_recipes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
frameIdNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.1
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. First observedv0.4.6

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does 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 by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no pagination, no result-count behavior, no note on what happens when frameId is omitted. With annotations doing the work, the description's failure to add any behavioral context keeps this low.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead. It is efficient but so terse that it reads as under-specification rather than deliberate brevity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a simple read tool this is close to minimal viable, but with one undocumented parameter, no output schema, and no indication of frameId's optionality or default scope, an agent lacks what it needs to call it correctly in edge cases.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema documents nothing about frameId, and the description only gestures at it with 'for the frame'. It never states that frameId is optional, what a frame is in this context, or what scope applies when it is omitted.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('List meal recipes'), which cleanly separates it from skylight_get_recipe (singular fetch) and the create/update/delete recipe siblings. It does not explicitly call out those siblings, but the list-vs-get distinction is unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus skylight_get_recipe, skylight_list_meals, or skylight_list_meal_categories. The only contextual clue is 'for the frame', which is not a usage condition an agent can act on.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools