Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
skylight-mcp

skylight-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

skylight_update_event_notification_settings

Update notification settings for a Skylight Calendar event frame by toggling on-time and early alerts and setting early minutes before.

Instructions

Update calendar-event notification settings.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
earlyNo
frameIdNo
on_timeNo
early_minutes_beforeNo

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 beyond that: it does not explain whether unspecified fields are preserved, whether the change is reversible, or what early vs on-time toggling means.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, which is structurally fine. But its brevity reflects under-specification rather than genuine economy, leaving real gaps unaddressed.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It should at minimum map the parameters and clarify the toggle semantics, none of which it does.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across four cryptic parameters (early, on_time, early_minutes_before, frameId), and the description explains none of them. With zero coverage the description carries the full burden and adds no meaning whatsoever.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (update) and resource (calendar-event notification settings), which is clear enough to act on. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling skylight_get_event_notification_settings, so the agent gets no help distinguishing read from write based on the description alone.

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 mention of the getter counterpart, and no prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the verb 'update'. The agent must infer context entirely.

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