publish_markdown_to_harnessConvert markdown into an unverified harness scaffold. Requires a SuperSkill Bearer token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| markdown | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| code | Yes | ||
| status | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "code": {
+ "const": "OK",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "const": true,
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "maximum": 599,
+ "minimum": 100,
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "ok",
+ "code",
+ "status"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description does not elaborate on behavioral traits beyond the token requirement. It does not mention potential side effects, idempotency, or other important behaviors. The description adds minimal value over 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 succinct with two sentences, no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes a key requirement.
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 has 2 parameters, an output schema, and annotations. The description is adequate for a simple tool but lacks details on the output (though output schema exists) and potential destructive behavior. More context on side effects would improve completeness.
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 0%, so the description should compensate. It implies 'markdown' is the content, but does not explain the optional 'name' parameter or any constraints. Missing parameter documentation reduces clarity.
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 action 'convert markdown into an unverified harness scaffold', specifying the input (markdown) and the output (harness scaffold). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'fetch', 'search', and 'harness_detail', which have different purposes.
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 mentions a prerequisite (SuperSkill Bearer token), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks guidance on context or exclusions.
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.