Redeem a reward on Skylight Calendar using the reward ID, with optional member and frame details.
Redeem a reward.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| frameId | No | ||
| category_id | No | Member redeeming, if required. |
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"v0.7.1Input schema / properties / category_id / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / category_id / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, which tells the agent this is a non-destructive write. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether points are deducted, whether redemption is idempotent, whether it can fail for insufficient balance, or what state changes result.
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 three-word sentence is short but not usefully concise — this is under-specification, not efficient communication. There is no front-loaded scope, prerequisite, or result information to earn the brevity.
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?
A mutation tool with no output schema, 33% parameter coverage, no usage guidance, and no side-effect disclosure is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. Nothing describes what a successful redemption does to the reward or the member's points.
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 only 33%: id and frameId are undocumented, and the lone documented field (category_id) carries a confusing description ("Member redeeming, if required.") that doesn't match its name. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever to compensate for the 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?
"Redeem a reward." is a verbatim restatement of the tool name skylight_redeem_reward, adding no distinguishing information. It doesn't differentiate from the many sibling reward tools (skylight_unredeem_reward, skylight_get_reward, skylight_add_reward_points), so an agent gains nothing beyond what the name already says.
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 guidance on when to use this versus skylight_unredeem_reward, skylight_get_reward, or skylight_add_reward_points. No preconditions, no state requirements (e.g., sufficient points balance), no indication of what triggers a valid redemption.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.