List Qumge's skill bundles. A bundle is a hand-picked set of skills that together get ONE job done — e.g. 'see what competitors are posting'. Use this when the user describes a goal rather than naming a tool, then call get_bundle to install the whole set in a single step.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly indicates a read-only 'List' action and implies that installation is handled by get_bundle, not this tool. It could further disclose output details, but the behavior is sufficiently 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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The definition and usage guidance are packed efficiently without unnecessary words.
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?
For a 0-parameter list tool, the description is largely complete: it defines bundles, explains when to use the tool, and directs to the next step. It doesn't specify the exact fields returned, but the lack of an output schema and low complexity make this acceptable.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds conceptual context about bundles, which is useful but not needed for parameter understanding. Baseline 4 applies.
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?
Uses a specific verb+resource ('List Qumge's skill bundles'), defines what a bundle is, and clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_bundle which installs bundles. The example ('see what competitors are posting') anchors the purpose.
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?
Explicitly states when to use this tool: when the user describes a goal rather than naming a tool. It also tells the agent to follow up with get_bundle to install, providing clear next-step guidance.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct: get_bundle vs get_skill differ by granularity, list_bundles/list_categories/list_models list different entity types, and search_skills is the discovery tool. Minor overlap exists between list_bundles and list_categories as both support browsing, but descriptions clarify their purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_* for fetches, list_* for enumerations, and search_* for querying. The naming is uniform and predictable.
Six tools is well-scoped for a skills catalog server. Each tool serves a clear purpose in the discovery/installation workflow, and the count is within the ideal range.
The tool surface covers the core workflow: search, browse categories/bundles, and fetch content for installation. A minor gap is the lack of a direct 'list all skills' endpoint, but categories and search compensate adequately.
