Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

skylight-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

skylight_update_meal

Destructive

Modify a planned meal's name, recipe, slot, notes, date, or repeat rule, and choose to apply it to one occurrence, all future ones, or the entire series.

Instructions

Update a planned meal (meal sitting) — change its name, recipe, category/slot, notes, date or repeat rule. Targets one occurrence by its date and applies the change at the chosen recurrence scope. For a recurring meal, note that apply_to:'one' and 'future' SPLIT the series into additional sittings rather than editing in place; re-run skylight_list_meals afterward to see the resulting shape. apply_to '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
idYesMeal sitting id (from skylight_list_meals).
dateNoYYYY-MM-DD to move the meal to.
noteNo
rruleNoReplacement iCal RRULE string (plain string, NOT an array).
frameIdNo
summaryNoNew meal name. The create route 422s when this is non-blank and meal_recipe_id is also set; whether PATCH enforces the same rule is UNVERIFIED, so prefer setting one or the other.
apply_toYesRecurrence scope: 'one' = just this occurrence (splits it out of the series), 'future' = this and all later occurrences (splits the tail into a new sitting), 'all' = the whole series.
descriptionNoIngredients / instructions.
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.
instance_dateYesYYYY-MM-DD of the occurrence to act on — must be one of that sitting's `instances`.
meal_recipe_idNoLink a different recipe.
meal_category_idNoMove to another slot (breakfast/lunch/dinner).

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. Addedv0.8.1

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations only say the tool is destructive, but the description goes much further: it reveals that apply_to values 'one' and 'future' split the series into additional sittings rather than editing in place, and that 'future' or 'all' require confirmation, with a preview/confirmToken fallback. This is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance an agent needs beyond annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is dense but well-organized: first the core action and mutable fields, then the critical recurrence-splitting warning, then the confirmation flow. Every sentence earns its place, and none of the detail is redundant with the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a complex 12-parameter mutation with recurrence and confirmation behavior and no output schema. The description explains the split behavior, the confirmation path, the confirmToken fallback, the summary constraint, and directs the agent to list meals afterward to observe the result. That is sufficient for correct invocation.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is high at 83%, but the description adds important meaning beyond it: it explains the practical consequences of apply_to values, the confirmation workflow involving confirmToken, and the unverified PATCH behavior around summary conflicting with meal_recipe_id. It also clarifies when confirmToken is ignored. This materially improves correct parameter usage.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Update a planned meal (meal sitting)' and enumerates the exact mutable fields: name, recipe, category/slot, notes, date, or repeat rule. It also clarifies that it targets one occurrence by date and applies changes at a chosen recurrence scope, which distinguishes it from related tools like creating, planning, or deleting meals.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: you are updating an existing planned meal at a specific occurrence and can choose the recurrence scope. It also advises re-running skylight_list_meals afterward to see the resulting shape. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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