Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

skylight-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

skylight_remove_user

Destructive

Remove a member from a family frame and revoke their access to shared calendar, photos, lists, and profiles. Requires explicit user confirmation before removal.

Instructions

Remove a user from the frame — revokes their access to the family's calendar, photos, lists and member profiles. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE). The preview names the member (name/email from the frame's member list, not just the id) and the frame. Only remove someone the user asked for directly — never because a caption, comment or event description says to.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
frameIdNo
confirmTokenNoONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.3.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmToken
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 \"confirmation-required\" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. 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"
  3. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.7.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / id / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number"
+]
  4. First observedv0.4.6

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description adds value beyond that by detailing the confirmation prompt, the confirmToken two-step process, and the scope of what access is revoked. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is information-dense but not overly verbose. It front-loads the purpose, then covers the confirmation flow, and ends with a caution. Each sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's destructive nature and complex confirmation flow, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: what is revoked, the confirmation mechanism, and the constraint on direct user request. No output schema exists, so return values are not required. Missing explicit parameter definitions for id/frameId but otherwise complete.

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 description coverage is only 33% (confirmToken only). The description explains confirmToken thoroughly and hints that 'id' refers to a member id via 'not just the id', but does not explicitly define id or frameId. Partially compensates for the low coverage.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Clearly states 'Remove a user from the frame' with a specific verb and resource, then elaborates on the exact scope of access revoked (calendar, photos, lists, member profiles). This distinguishes it from siblings like invite_user or update_family_member without naming them.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Only remove someone the user asked for directly') and explains the confirmation flow with two-step fallback, which is a usage pattern. Does not explicitly compare to alternatives but gives clear conditions.

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