Skip to main content
Glama

List Skills

list_skills
Read-only

List the user's stored skills (slug + description). Call this at the START of a task: if a skill matches what the user asked for, fetch it with get_skill and follow it instead of improvising.

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": "list_skills"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoOnly skills carrying every one of these tags.
brain_idNoRestrict to skills stored in one brain.
platformNoOnly skills that support this host (e.g. "claude", "cursor", "grok"). Skills that declare no platforms always match.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful workflow context — that results are a slug+description index and that a matching skill should be applied rather than improvised. It stops short of describing pagination or result-size limits, which is the only real gap.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines the tool, the second defines the workflow. The discovery-then-fetch instruction is front-loaded where an agent will read it.

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 zero-required-param, read-only list tool with fully documented filters and no output schema, the definition covers what it returns and how to act on it. Only minor operational details (result volume, ordering) are absent.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with tags, brain_id, and platform each documented including AND semantics and the no-platform fallback. The description adds no filtering detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"List the user's stored skills (slug + description)" gives a specific verb, resource, and even the returned fields. It also names the companion tool get_skill, so the agent can distinguish discovery from retrieval without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to call it ("at the START of a task") and what to do next (fetch with get_skill and follow it "instead of improvising"). The condition that selects the alternative is spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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.

Resources