Skip to main content
Glama

skill_get

Read-only

Read a published skill by UUID or exact name. A system name wins over a tenant name; duplicate tenant names require an ID. Use after skill_list.

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": {
      "skillId": "<skillId>"
    },
    "name": "skill_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
skillIdYesSkill UUID or exact name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine resolution behavior beyond them — system names take precedence over tenant names, and ambiguous tenant names must be resolved with an ID. That is exactly the kind of non-obvious lookup rule an agent needs before calling.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and identifier forms, then resolution rules, then sequencing. Nothing is repeated from the schema and no sentence is filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter read-only tool this covers identity, resolution, and placement in the workflow. The only omission is any hint about what a skill record contains, which matters slightly since no output schema exists, but the tool's simplicity keeps this a minor gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as "Skill UUID or exact name," so the baseline would be 3. The description goes further by explaining the precedence rule between system and tenant names and what happens on duplicate tenant names, adding real semantics the schema does not encode.

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 ("Read a published skill") plus the accepted identifier forms (UUID or exact name), so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It is distinguishable from skill_list via the explicit "Use after skill_list" sequencing, but never mentions skill_apply, the other sibling in the same family.

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?

Gives a concrete usage condition ("Use after skill_list"), which establishes the list-then-get workflow and implicitly tells the agent not to call this first. It does not cover when to skip this tool entirely or how it relates to skill_apply, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.