Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

skylight-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

skylight_update_chore

Destructive

Update a chore's details, including summary, schedule, recurrence, category, or rewards. Handle recurring chores by applying changes to this, this_and_future, or all occurrences with confirmation.

Instructions

Update a chore. apply_to 'this_and_future' or 'all' 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).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
startNo
frameIdNo
summaryNo
apply_toNoFor recurring chores: which occurrences to update.
emoji_iconNo
recurrenceNoiCalendar RRULE without the "RRULE:" prefix; edits the whole series.
start_timeNo
category_idNo
descriptionNo
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.
reward_pointsNo
recurring_untilNoISO datetime the recurrence ends.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.3.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • 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. Changed1 schema field changedv0.8.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  4. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.7.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / category_id / anyOf
      Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  }
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / category_id / type
      Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "number"
+]
  5. First observedv0.4.6

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses a non-obvious two-phase confirmation behavior, including the client-ellicitation path, the preview/confirmToken fallback, and the need to repeat the call with the same arguments. This adds meaningful context beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation because it explains how the mutation actually proceeds for bulk recurring updates. It does not enumerate every side effect, but for an update tool this is strong disclosure.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose, then uses its remaining length for the highest-risk behavior: the confirmation requirement. The second sentence is dense and references 'MCP_CONFIRM_MODE' without explanation, which slightly hurts parseability, but there is no filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema and only 31% schema description coverage, the agent is left to infer most field semantics and the preview response shape. The description covers the confirmation flow but not what the preview contains, what success/error responses look like, or the exact side effects of updating recurring occurrences. For a 13-parameter destructive tool, the overall context is incomplete.

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 only 31%, and the description only elaborates on apply_to and confirmToken, which the schema already documents in some detail. The remaining parameters, such as start, frameId, summary, emoji_icon, start_time, category_id, description, and reward_points, rely on their names alone. With such low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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?

The description opens with the concrete action 'Update a chore,' clearly naming both the verb and the resource. This is enough to separate it from the many sibling tools that update tasks, recipes, rewards, or calendars. It goes beyond a tautology by immediately adding the recurrence/confirmation caveat.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives a clear rule for when confirmation applies: apply_to 'this_and_future' or 'all' triggers a confirmation flow, while 'this' presumably does not. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when to prefer this tool over skylight_delete_chore, skylight_complete_chore, or skylight_create_recurring_chore. Usage guidance is therefore implied rather than explicit.

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