Change the name of a Skylight device by providing its device ID and the new name, so labels stay accurate and recognizable.
Rename a Skylight device.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Device id (from skylight_list_devices). | |
| name | Yes | New device name. | |
| frameId | No |
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 / id / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / id / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them (no contradiction). But it adds no behavioral context of its own — no note on required permissions, whether the frameId scoping is needed, or what happens on an unknown id.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness for a mutation tool with three parameters.
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?
For a mutating tool with no output schema and an undocumented frameId parameter, the description is essentially empty. The safety profile comes entirely from annotations, and nothing tells the agent how to correctly scope the rename.
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 coverage is 67%: id and name are described inline, but frameId is undocumented in both schema and description. The description contributes no parameter meaning at all, leaving a third of the inputs opaque.
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?
The description gives a specific verb (Rename) and resource (Skylight device), so an agent immediately knows the operation. However, it does nothing to distinguish this from the sibling skylight_rename_frame or skylight_update_frame, leaving the agent to infer that 'device' is a distinct resource type.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives despite there being a rename_frame sibling. Usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.