Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
skylight-mcp

skylight-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

skylight_rename_frame

Rename a Skylight Calendar frame by specifying the new name and optional frame ID, updating its label on the family hub.

Instructions

Rename a Skylight frame.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "skylight_rename_frame"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
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

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing on top of that — no note on whether the old name is lost, whether this affects devices sharing the frame, or what authorization is needed.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

One short, front-loaded sentence with no waste, so it is structurally clean. But its brevity comes from under-specification rather than from efficient information density.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, 0% parameter description coverage, and a near-duplicate sibling (skylight_update_frame), the description is far too thin to let an agent call it correctly and confidently.

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 description carries the full burden of explaining the two parameters. It says nothing about 'name' (the new name) or 'frameId' — notably that frameId is optional and what happens when it is omitted, which is the most likely source of a wrong call.

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

Purpose3/5

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

It names a specific verb and resource ('Rename a Skylight frame'), which is better than a tautology. However, the sibling list contains skylight_update_frame, and the description gives no clue why an agent would pick rename_frame over update_frame, so the boundary an agent actually needs is missing.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative (skylight_update_frame or skylight_rename_device). The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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