Set which sub-calendars of a connected Skylight account are active. Use it to control which calendars appear on the family hub.
Set which sub-calendars of a connected account are active.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| frameId | No | ||
| active_calendars | Yes | Calendar ids to keep active. |
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 / active_calendars / items / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / active_calendars / items / 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 and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the supplied list replaces the existing active set (implicitly deactivating others) or merges into it, which is the key behavioral question for this mutation.
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 single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.
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 mutation tool with no output schema, two of three parameters undocumented, and an ambiguous required 'id', the description is too thin. It leaves the replace-vs-merge behavior and the identity of 'id' unresolved, which an agent needs before invoking it.
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%; the required 'id' and the optional 'frameId' have no descriptions anywhere. The description only restates the active_calendars concept already documented in the schema, and never explains what 'id' refers to or what frameId does.
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?
States a specific verb ('Set') and resource (sub-calendars of a connected account being active), which distinguishes it from read-only siblings like skylight_list_calendars. However, 'connected account' is ambiguous about whether 'id' identifies a frame or a source calendar, so the agent cannot fully separate it from skylight_set_default_calendar or skylight_categorize_source_calendar.
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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite several adjacent calendar siblings (skylight_set_default_calendar, skylight_categorize_source_calendar, skylight_delete_source_calendar). The agent must infer from the name alone which calendar tool applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.