Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

skylight-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

skylight_plan_meal

Plan a meal on a specific date, with optional repeat, recipe link, and grocery list addition.

Instructions

Plan a meal on a date (optionally repeating, link a recipe, add to grocery list).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dateYesYYYY-MM-DD the meal is planned for.
noteNo
rruleNoiCal RRULE string for a repeating meal, e.g. "FREQ=DAILY;INTERVAL=1;UNTIL=20260626T235959Z" (meals use a plain rrule string, NOT an array).
frameIdNo
summaryYesMeal name. LIVE-VERIFIED: when meal_recipe_id is set, this must be BLANK — pass "" and the sitting inherits its name from the linked recipe. Sending a non-blank summary together with a recipe id returns 422 {"errors":{"summary":["must be blank"]}}.
descriptionNoIngredients / instructions.
meal_recipe_idNoLink an existing recipe.
saveToRecipeBoxNo
meal_category_idYesMeal category id (breakfast/lunch/dinner — from skylight_list_meal_categories).
add_to_grocery_listNo

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. Changed1 schema field changedv0.8.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / summary / description
      Previous value: -"Meal name."New value: +"Meal name. LIVE-VERIFIED: when meal_recipe_id is set, this must be BLANK — pass \"\" and the sitting inherits its name from the linked recipe. Sending a non-blank summary together with a recipe id returns 422 {\"errors\":{\"summary\":[\"must be blank\"]}}."
  3. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.7.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / meal_category_id / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / meal_category_id / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number"
+]
    • removedInput schema / properties / meal_recipe_id / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / meal_recipe_id / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number"
+]
  4. First observedv0.4.6

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world write. The description adds useful context by surfacing side effects beyond the primary write — that it can repeat, link a recipe, and push to the grocery list. It does not disclose permissions, the blank-summary-when-recipe-linked constraint, or repeat semantics, so it remains mid-range.

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 that names the action and date first, then the optional modes. Every clause maps to a capability, though the compressed parenthetical leaves a few terms (e.g. what "repeating" or grocery-list targeting means) slightly ambiguous.

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 10-parameter, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description is thin: it omits the recipe/summary interaction, the repeat default/format, and which grocery list is targeted. The rich schema covers much of this, but the description alone is only marginally sufficient.

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 60%, so several parameters (note, frameId, saveToRecipeBox, description) are undocumented in both places. The description does map its parenthetical to real parameters ("repeating"→rrule, "link a recipe"→meal_recipe_id, "add to grocery list"→add_to_grocery_list), adding conceptual value, but it does not compensate for the uncovered parameters.

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 states a specific verb+resource ("Plan a meal") plus the key axis ("on a date"), and the parenthetical enumerates the optional capabilities. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like skylight_update_meal, skylight_delete_meal, or skylight_generate_meal_plan, leaving an agent to infer the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by "Plan a meal on a date," and the parenthetical hints at when the optional modes apply (repeating, recipe-linked, grocery-list). However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative siblings (generate_meal_plan, update_meal) that compete for the same intent.

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