Update a Skylight list item's label, section, or completion status by list ID and item ID. Mark items done, reopen them, or move them between sections.
Update a list item on a Skylight frame.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | No | ||
| itemId | Yes | ||
| listId | Yes | ||
| checked | No | true marks the item completed, false reopens it. | |
| frameId | No | ||
| section | No | Section name (null to clear). |
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 / section / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / section / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "null"
+]v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower, but the description adds nothing beyond them. It does not clarify whether this is a partial or full replacement update, whether omitted fields are preserved, or what happens to existing values.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness; there is almost no content to structure.
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 6-parameter mutation tool with two required IDs, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits which fields are updatable, partial-update behavior, and how it relates to the adjacent list-item tools, leaving real gaps.
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% (checked and section documented in-schema; label, itemId, listId, frameId are not). The description contributes zero parameter meaning, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered fields and gives no insight into update semantics per parameter.
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 and resource ('update a list item'), so the agent knows the operation type. However, it offers no differentiation from the crowded family of sibling list-item tools (delete_list_item, move_list_item, set_list_item_section, add_list_item), and 'on a Skylight frame' is vague since frameId is just one optional parameter.
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 guidance on when to use this versus set_list_item_section, move_list_item, or update_list. No statement of prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions. The agent must infer routing from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.