Transfer skill ownership to another user. Owner only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skill_id | Yes | The skill to act on, identified by its UUID, slug, or name. | |
| new_owner_user_id_or_email | Yes | The user to transfer ownership to, by UUID or email. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provide behavioral context, and the description only states 'transfer ownership' without disclosing behavioral traits such as role changes, acceptance requirements, or reversibility.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraint, no redundant information.
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 simple mutation tool with good schema coverage and output schema, the description is adequate but lacks context about consequences or post-transfer state.
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% for both parameters; the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, warranting a baseline score of 3.
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 verb 'transfer', the resource 'skill ownership', and the constraint 'Owner only', distinguishing it from sibling tools like transfer_team_ownership.
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 usage is restricted to the current owner but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like transfer_template_ownership.
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.
