get_collectionCurated bundles of skills. Without an argument: list the available collections (slug, name, size). With a slug: the skills in that collection, in order — then call install_skill for each one the user wants (usually all).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collection | No | Collection slug, e.g. laravel-starter. Omit to list all collections. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by explaining the no-argument vs. slug behavior and that skills are returned in order. It also implies this is a read-only lookup by instructing the agent to call install_skill separately for installation. It does not mention error behavior or edge cases, but for a simple get/list tool the core behavior is transparent.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loads the core concept, and uses a clear branching structure for the optional argument. Every phrase earns its place, including the practical 'usually all' guidance for follow-up installation.
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?
Since there is no output schema, the description adequately describes return content: collection lists include slug, name, and size; slug queries return ordered skills. It also provides the next logical action (install_skill). It could mention invalid-slug behavior or the full shape of a skill entry, but those are minor gaps for a tool this simple.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%: the schema already documents the collection slug and that omitting it lists all collections. The description reinforces this behavior and adds the 'in order' detail for the resulting skills, but it does not significantly expand the parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 specifies two concrete behaviors: listing all collections when no argument is given, and returning the ordered skills in a collection when a slug is given. This clearly identifies the tool's resource (skill collections) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_skill or search_skills.
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?
It gives clear conditional guidance: omit the argument to list collections, or pass a slug to view its skills. It also tells the agent to follow up with install_skill for each desired skill, which is strong usage direction. It does not explicitly contrast with get_skill or search_skills, so it misses full alternative routing.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: brain_get/brain_list/brain_search/brain_write cover memory operations, while get_collection/get_skill/install_skill/search_skills/submit_skill handle skill discovery, retrieval, installation, and submission. No two tools overlap in function; even the search vs get pairs are distinct.
The brain_* prefix provides a consistent pattern for memory tools, but the skill tools use mixed conventions: get_collection, get_skill, install_skill, search_skills, submit_skill — no shared prefix or uniform verb_noun structure. This inconsistency is noticeable but each name is still readable.
With 9 tools covering two domains (memory and skills), the count is well-scoped. Each tool earns its place, and the number is within the ideal range for a focused server.
The brain tools cover list, get, search, and write, but lack an explicit delete operation. The skill tools cover search, get, install, submit, and collection listing, but no uninstall. These are minor gaps that agents can work around; the core workflows are complete.