Check whether a forked skill's upstream template has new versions or was unpublished (returns parent_template_id, parent_template_version, upstream_latest_version, is_upstream_unpublished).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skill_id | Yes | The skill to act on, identified by its UUID, slug, or name. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / skill_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The skill to act on, identified by its UUID, slug, or name.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / workflow_idRemoved value: -{
- "description": "The workflow to act on, identified by its UUID, slug, or name.",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "workflow_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "skill_id"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by disclosing the specific behavioral scope: it checks upstream version status and unpublish state, and it returns a defined set of fields. It doesn't mention edge cases like what happens if the skill isn't a fork, but the read-only nature is well covered.
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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the return fields in parentheses. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition of the tool name.
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 read-only lookup tool with one fully documented parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool checks and what it returns. The only minor gap is not stating behavior for non-forked skills or error conditions, but the output schema and read-only annotation cover most of what an agent needs.
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 fully documents the single parameter (skill_id). The description doesn't add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, but it does clarify the purpose of the parameter in context (acting on a forked skill). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.
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 ('Check whether') and resource ('a forked skill's upstream template'), and clearly distinguishes its purpose from siblings like get_skill or get_template by focusing on fork lineage and upstream version status. It also lists the exact return fields, making the tool's scope 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 implies when to use this tool: when you need to know if a forked skill's upstream has new versions or was unpublished. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of fork lineage is clear enough to guide an agent away from generic get_skill/get_template calls. A brief mention of when not to use it would push this to 5.
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.