Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
skylight-mcp

skylight-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

skylight_update_profile

Update a frame profile's name and birthday by frameId so Skylight Calendar family hub details stay accurate.

Instructions

Update the frame profile (name, birthday).

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_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
frameIdNo
birthdayNoYYYY-MM-DD

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

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: it does not say whether this is a partial patch (only supplied fields changed) or a full replacement, nor what permissions are required or what happens to unmentioned fields.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded and free of padding, but its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than crisp communication.

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, 0 required parameters, and heavy sibling overlap, the description should clarify the target frame and the update semantics. It omits frameId and any behavioral detail, leaving the agent with real ambiguity about how to invoke it correctly.

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 only 33% (just 'birthday' with YYYY-MM-DD). The description names name and birthday but says nothing about frameId, which is the target identifier an agent must supply, and adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the two fields it lists.

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 and resource ('Update the frame profile') and enumerates the fields (name, birthday), so the operation is clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like skylight_update_frame and skylight_rename_frame, leaving the agent to guess which one to call.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related update tools (update_frame, rename_frame, update_family_member). No prerequisites, ordering, or exclusions are stated.

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