skylight-mcp

skylight_update_household_config

Update household settings for a Skylight Calendar frame, including Disney screensaver and Disney profile picture options.

Instructions

Update household configuration.

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_household_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`frameId`	No
`disney_screensaver`	No
`disney_profile_pictures`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.1Sep 19, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

First observedv0.4.6Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

D1.9/5.0

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: it does not say whether this is a partial or full replacement update, whether unspecified fields are preserved, or whether any permission is required.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

It is short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness; the single sentence carries no information beyond the tool name. There is no structure to front-load.

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, three undocumented parameters, and only generic annotations, the description should explain the update semantics and the fields involved. It provides none of that, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke it correctly.

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% and the description names none of the three parameters (frameId, disney_screensaver, disney_profile_pictures). With all parameters undocumented in both schema and description, the description fails to compensate at all.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The sentence 'Update household configuration' merely restates the tool name skylight_update_household_config; it identifies a verb and resource but adds no distinguishing detail about what 'configuration' comprises. It gives no indication of how this differs from the sibling skylight_get_household_config beyond the obvious read/write split.

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 read-side counterpart (skylight_get_household_config), and no conditions or prerequisites stated. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server