skylight-mcp

skylight_update_list

Update an existing Skylight list's name, color, or type using its list ID. Modify shopping or to-do list details without creating a new list.

Instructions

Update a Skylight list's name, color, or type.

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": {
      "listId": "<listId>"
    },
    "name": "skylight_update_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	No
`color`	No
`label`	No
`listId`	Yes
`frameId`	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

C2.7/5.0

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 mutation and safety profile is partly covered. The description adds no further behavior: it doesn't say whether updates are partial or full-replace, whether unspecified fields are cleared, or what permissions are needed.

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?

A single compact sentence with the operation front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than trimming redundancy.

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?

A mutation tool with five parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema needs more than one sentence. Missing are required-parameter guidance, frameId's role, enum meaning, and partial-vs-replace semantics.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It loosely names 'name, color, or type' (mapping to label, color, kind) but omits listId (the only required param) and frameId entirely, and gives no format or enum detail for kind.

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 (a Skylight list) plus the updatable attributes, so the agent knows the general intent. However it does not differentiate from nearby siblings like skylight_update_list_item or skylight_delete_list, leaving 'list' scope ambiguous.

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?

The description offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as update_list_item or delete_list. It only restates the operation.

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

Deploy Server