Your character's skills.
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": "skills"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare a strange mix (readOnlyHint=true alongside destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false), and the description does nothing to explain that tension, nor whether the call mutates state, has cost, or is safe to repeat. It adds no behavioral context beyond the structured hints, though it does not directly contradict them either.
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?
Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy: a single fragment with no front-loaded statement of action, result, or scope. There is no wasted wording, but there is also nothing that earns its place as guidance.
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?
The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), which lowers the bar, but the description still leaves an agent unsure what comes back and why destructiveHint is true for a skills lookup. It should at minimum state that it returns the character's skill list and clarify it is informational.
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?
The input schema is an empty object with zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies; nothing is missing on this dimension.
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?
The description is a noun-phrase fragment, "Your character's skills.", that essentially restates the tool name 'skills'. There is no verb indicating the operation (list? get? refresh?) or scope (own character vs. others), so an agent cannot confidently tell what calling it does, let alone distinguish it from siblings like 'status' or 'inventory'.
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 when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives. The definition provides nothing to route an agent between this tool and adjacent ones such as 'status', 'inventory', or 'look_around'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.