Superseded listing, not a dead server. This entry was imported from an early Glama registration under com.moltlinestudio.mcp; the same server is listed under its official MCP Registry name — use com.moltlinestudio/skillmd-lint. Endpoint unchanged: https://mcp.moltlinestudio.com/skillmd-lint — still live, still free on the free tier. Only this duplicate entry is deprecated.
A fully free linter for agent skill files: lint_skill validates YAML frontmatter, structure, size budgets, and safety phrasing with a pass/fail verdict; packaging_check validates zip layout against marketplace rules; plus regex_test, json_validate, diff_texts, and cron_explain for skill authors. No license or account required.
Explain a 5-field cron expression in plain English and flag mistakes. FREE.
Typical input {"expression": "0 9 * * 1-5"} returns {"expression": "0 9 * * 1-5", "meaning": "at minute 0; at hour 9; every day of month; every month; day of week 1-5", "issues": ["none"]}; out-of-range fields are listed in "issues".
Use to read a schedule back in plain English before trusting it. Assumes 5-field cron; not for 6-field or seconds-precision variants. Errors: on invalid, missing, or malformed input this tool never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ""} (for example {"error": "expected 5 fields, got "}). Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expression | Yes | A standard 5-field cron string (minute hour day-of-month month day-of-week), e.g. "0 9 * * 1-5"; must be non-empty. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description confirms this by stating it never raises protocol errors and is read-only/idempotent, adding value by detailing error return format. However, the description could elaborate on side effects (even if none) or behavior under unexpected inputs beyond malformed ones.
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 well-structured: it starts with a one-line summary, provides a concrete example, then usage notes. Every sentence adds value, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no enums, no nested objects, clear output schema), the description is complete. It covers input expectations, output format, error handling, and assumptions, with no gaps for the intended use case.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameter well. The description adds value by showing a usage example with expected output format, though it doesn't add much beyond clarifying input/output examples.
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 clearly states the tool explains a 5-field cron expression in plain English and flags mistakes. It differentiates from siblings (e.g., diff_texts, json_validate) by being narrowly scoped to cron scheduling, not general text or code validation.
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?
The description explicitly says when to use it (to read a schedule) and what it's not for (6-field or seconds-precision variants). It also notes it's safe to retry after correcting input, but doesn't explicitly contrast with non-sibling alternatives or edge cases like timezones.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Produce a unified diff between two texts. FREE.
Useful for comparing two SKILL.md versions. Typical input {"a": "", "b": ""} returns {"changed_lines": N, "diff": "--- \n+++ \n@@ ... @@\n-old line\n+new line"}; identical inputs return {"changed_lines": 0, "diff": "(identical)"}. The diff is capped at 400 lines.
Use to show exactly what changed between two versions of a text. Not for judging the risk of a code change - the codereview server's review_diff does that. Errors: on invalid, missing, or malformed input this tool never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ""} (for example {"error": "each text must be at most 500000 characters"}). Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| a | Yes | The original text (left side of the diff); at most 500000 characters. | |
| b | Yes | The revised text (right side of the diff); at most 500000 characters. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes well beyond by specifying that errors are never protocol errors but structured JSON, providing exact error examples, stating the diff cap (400 lines), describing the output format for identical inputs, and confirming read-only/idempotent nature. No contradictions.
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 well-structured: purpose first, then usage guidance, then error handling, then safety note. All sentences serve a purpose. Slight verbosity in the error example and the 'FREE.' label could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient and front-loaded.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no enums, output schema exists but not shown), the description fully covers input format, output format (both normal and error), limits (400 diff lines, 500000 char text), and behavioral properties (read-only, idempotent, retry safety). No significant gaps.
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 description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions already in the schema. The description adds a typical input example ({a, b}) and reaffirms the character limit in an error example, but these are supplementary rather than essential. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.
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 opens with a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Produce a unified diff between two texts.' It clearly distinguishes itself from a related tool (review_diff) that judges risk of code changes. Among the listed siblings, it is the only text comparison tool, making its purpose unmistakable.
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?
The description explicitly states when to use ('show exactly what changed between two versions of a text'), when not to use ('not for judging the risk of a code change'), and provides an explicit alternative ('the codereview server's review_diff does that'). It also gives example input and explains retry safety, leaving no ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Validate JSON text and summarize its structure. FREE.
Typical input {"text": "{"a": [1, 2]}"} returns {"valid": true, "structure": {"a": ["array[2]", "int"]}}; invalid JSON returns {"valid": false, "error": "", "line": N, "column": N} instead.
Use when JSON may be malformed or its shape is unknown. Reports structure, not conformance to a schema. Not for testing a pattern (regex_test). Errors: on invalid, missing, or malformed input this tool never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ""} (for example {"error": "text is empty — pass the JSON document as a raw string"}). Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The JSON document to validate, as a raw string; must be non-empty. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by detailing error behavior (returns error object, never a protocol error) and stating 'Every call is read-only and idempotent' — reinforcing annotations and adding concrete error-handling context. Minor gap: no mention of rate limits or auth (though not expected with FREE). Score 4 because annotations already cover most behavioral traits, but description enriches with practical details.
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 moderately concise and well-structured with front-loaded purpose and usage, followed by examples and error behavior. It is slightly verbose (e.g., redundant emphasis on idempotency), but every sentence provides useful information without significant waste. A minor improvement would be to remove the duplicate error behavior note around 'Errors: on invalid...'.
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?
Given the tool has a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, explicit annotations, and an output schema (which may exist but is not shown), the description is fully complete for the tool's complexity. It covers purpose, usage, error handling, idempotency, and sibling differentiation — no gaps detected for a read-only validation tool.
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 description coverage is 100%, meaning the schema already documents the 'text' parameter well (type, minLength, description: 'The JSON document to validate, as a raw string; must be non-empty.'). The description adds an example of typical input ({"text": "{\"a\": [1, 2]}"}) and notes that the text must be non-empty, which aligns with schema. However, it doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond the schema — baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool validates JSON text and summarizes its structure, using specific verbs ('Validate', 'summarize') and resources ('JSON text'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like regex_test by explicitly noting it is 'Not for testing a pattern (regex_test)', and provides concrete examples of input and output.
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?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use when JSON may be malformed or its shape is unknown'), what it reports ('structure, not conformance to a schema'), and a specific alternative ('Not for testing a pattern (regex_test)'). It also provides error-handling behavior and a safety note about idempotency, offering comprehensive guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Lint one SKILL.md file the way marketplaces and agents parse it. FREE.
Checks YAML frontmatter presence and required fields (name, description), description quality, body structure (procedure steps, rules, degradation), secret/credential leakage, injection-style phrasing, and size budget. Typical input {"content": ""} returns {"verdict": "pass" | "pass-with-warnings" | "fail", "errors": ["..."], "warnings": ["..."], "stats": {"body_words": N, "has_frontmatter": bool}}.
Use on the full text of one SKILL.md. Not for the surrounding archive layout (packaging_check). Errors: on invalid, missing, or malformed input this tool never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ""} (for example {"error": "content is empty — pass the full SKILL.md text including frontmatter"}). Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| content | Yes | The complete SKILL.md file text, frontmatter included; must be non-empty. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as true, false, false respectively. The description reinforces this by stating 'Every call is read-only and idempotent' and explicitly describes error-returning behavior instead of protocol errors. It adds detail about how errors are returned as structured JSON with fix instructions.
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 efficiently structured: a one-liner purpose, bulleted checklist of lint operations, typical input/output format, usage note, and error behavior. Every sentence serves a clear purpose without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (handling return values), the description covers all needed context: input format, use case boundaries, error handling, and safety guarantees. It is fully complete for a lint tool with good annotations.
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% with a clear description for the single 'content' parameter. The description adds value by explaining the input format ('full SKILL.md text including frontmatter') and typical retrieval from the tool's response, which slightly exceeds what the schema 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 clearly states the tool lints one SKILL.md file, contrasting it with the sibling 'packaging_check' tool for archive layout. It specifies the exact checks performed (YAML frontmatter, required fields, description quality, etc.), making the purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description explicitly says 'Use on the full text of one SKILL.md. Not for the surrounding archive layout (packaging_check).' It provides typical input/output examples and error behavior, including that it is safe to retry after correcting input. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Validate a zip layout plan for a skill marketplace before packaging. FREE.
Checks SKILL.md placement rules and flags junk files. Typical input {"file_paths": ["my-skill/SKILL.md", "my-skill/examples.md"], "marketplace": "agensi"} returns {"verdict": "pass" | "fail", "issues": ["..."], "skill_files_found": ["my-skill/SKILL.md"]}.
Use on a planned file layout, before zipping. Not for the content of a skill file (lint_skill). Errors: on invalid, missing, or malformed input this tool never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ""} (for example {"error": "file_paths is empty — list every file that will be inside the zip"}). Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_paths | Yes | Every file path that will be inside the zip, relative to the zip root, e.g. ["my-skill/SKILL.md"]; at least 1 entry. | |
| marketplace | No | Rule set to apply: "agensi" (SKILL.md at root or one folder deep) or "generic" (junk-file checks only). Default "agensi". | agensi |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint: false), the description discloses that the tool returns error messages instead of raising protocol errors, that it is safe to retry after correcting input, and provides full example error output. No contradictions with annotations.
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 efficiently structured: starts with single-line purpose and cost, then example, usage guidance, error behavior. Two minor areas reduce score: the example could be slightly leaner ('Typical input...') and the error notes repeat the JSON format. Still highly effective.
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?
Given 2 parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description largely completes the picture with usage guidance and error behavior. The output schema exists but is not referenced; describing return value types briefly could push completeness to 5.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds a concrete input example but does not add additional semantics beyond the schema's property descriptions.
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 states a specific verb ('Validate'), resource ('zip layout plan for a skill marketplace'), and context ('before packaging'). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool lint_skill by noting it checks layout, not content.
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?
The description explicitly says when to use ('on a planned file layout, before zipping') and when not to use ('Not for the content of a skill file – lint_skill'). This provides clear guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Test a regular expression against sample strings. FREE.
Typical input {"pattern": "v(\d+)", "samples": ["v12", "beta"]} returns {"pattern": ..., "results": [{"sample": "v12", "match": true, "matched_text": "v12", "groups": ["12"]}, {"sample": "beta", "match": false, ...}], "match_count": 1}.
Use to confirm a pattern matches what you expect before shipping it. Not for validating JSON (json_validate). Errors: on invalid, missing, or malformed input this tool never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ""} (for example {"error": "invalid regex: "}). Every call is read-only and idempotent, so after correcting the input it is always safe to retry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pattern | Yes | A Python-flavor regular expression as a string, e.g. "v(\\d+)". | |
| samples | Yes | Strings to test the pattern against; only the first 50 are evaluated. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces these by stating 'Every call is read-only and idempotent.' It additionally discloses error behavior ('never raises a protocol error — it returns {"error": ...}'), which is beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.
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 well-structured with a concise summary followed by example, usage, and error behavior. It is front-loaded but slightly long; however, every sentence adds value. A minor trim could improve conciseness, but it is effective.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, output schema exists, annotations present), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, error handling, retry safety, and the sample limit. The output schema handles return values, so no further explanation is needed.
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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a typical input example that demonstrates how to use the parameters, including escaping. It also specifies the limit on samples (first 50) from the schema. This adds practical context beyond the schema's descriptions.
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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Test a regular expression against sample strings.' It provides a concrete example and distinguishes itself from a sibling ('Not for validating JSON (json_validate)'). The verb-resource pairing is clear and specific.
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?
The description gives clear guidance: 'Use to confirm a pattern matches what you expect before shipping it.' It explicitly states when not to use it (JSON validation) and points to the alternative tool. It also explains error handling and retry safety, aiding the agent in deciding when to invoke the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
cron_explaindiff_textsjson_validatelint_skillpackaging_checkregex_testClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool addresses a distinct concern: cron expressions, text diffs, JSON validation, SKILL.md linting, zip packaging, and regex testing. There is no overlap in purpose or output, so an agent can unambiguously select the right tool for a given task.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (cron_explain, diff_texts, json_validate, lint_skill, packaging_check, regex_test). The pattern is uniform and predictable, making the API easy to navigate.
Six tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range for a focused server. Each tool serves a clear purpose, and the count feels neither bloated nor sparse for a linting and validation toolkit.
The core domain of validating SKILL.md files is well covered by lint_skill and packaging_check, and the generic utilities (cron, diff, JSON, regex) support auxiliary validation needs. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to fetch or write files directly, but the read-only linting workflow is complete.