Ruby on Rails MCP Skills
Server Details
Skill Catalog
The library contains 42 public skills organized by Rails development concern.
Category | Examples |
Planning |
|
Testing |
|
Code quality |
|
Architecture and DDD |
|
Rails imple |
- Status
- Unhealthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.2/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: list_agents vs list_skills clearly separate discovery of agents from skills, and use_agent vs use_skill are corresponding read operations. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: list_agents, list_skills, use_agent, use_skill. Perfectly predictable.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of discovering and reading Rails Agents and Skills. No unnecessary tools, and the count is suitable.
For a read-only discovery server, the surface is complete: list to discover, then use to read. There are no gaps for the intended domain.
Available Tools
4 toolslist_agentsList Rails AgentsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Discover available Rails Agents before loading one with use_agent. Returns names, paths, descriptions, and keywords only; it does not return full agent bodies. This tool is read-only and has no repository side effects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of agents returned. |
| agents | Yes | Rails Agents available through use_agent. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; the description adds context about not returning full bodies, but otherwise aligns with annotations without significant new behavioral disclosure.
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, each adding value, with the main purpose 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 no parameters and a presumably rich output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, return content, and safety.
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 input schema has no parameters, and description coverage is 100%, so baseline 4 applies. No parameter documentation needed.
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's verb ('Discover') and resource ('available Rails Agents'), and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool use_agent.
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 explicit context: 'before loading one with use_agent,' and outlines what is returned versus what is not, guiding proper use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_skillsList Rails SkillsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Discover public Rails Agent Skills before loading one with use_skill. Returns names, categories, paths, and routing descriptions only; it does not return full skill bodies. This tool is read-only and has no repository side effects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of public skills returned. |
| skills | Yes | Public Rails Agent Skills available through use_skill. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only says 'List', which implies a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, lacks side effects, or meet other behavioral transparency needs.
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 sentence that is front-loaded and concise, with no wasted 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?
Given the low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately states the purpose and hints at the tool's context relative to use_skill. It could mention the output format or that it is read-only, but it is mostly complete.
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?
There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter information, but baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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 it lists all public Rails Agent Skills available through use_skill, with a specific verb and resource, and implicitly differentiates from the sibling tool use_skill by hinting that use_skill is for using skills.
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 that this tool is for discovering skills before using use_skill, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
use_agentUse Rails AgentARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Read one Rails Agent by name after selecting it from list_agents. Returns the full SKILL.md instructions plus structured metadata. This tool is read-only and has no repository side effects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_name | Yes | Agent name, for example tdd, review, or bug-fix. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Normalized agent name, or null when not found. |
| path | Yes | Repository path to SKILL.md, or null when not found. |
| error | Yes | Error message when the agent cannot be loaded. |
| found | Yes | Whether the requested agent was found. |
| content | Yes | Full SKILL.md instructions, or null when not found. |
| description | Yes | Short routing description, or null when not found. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states the tool is read-only and has no side effects, which aligns with and adds to the annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint). 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 concise (3 sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary 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?
Given the presence of an output schema and the description's mention of returning 'full SKILL.md instructions plus structured metadata', the description is sufficiently complete. No need for further detail on return format.
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 description for agent_name. The description adds context by linking the parameter to the list_agents workflow, improving understanding beyond the schema.
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 ('Read one Rails Agent'), the resource ('Rails Agent'), and distinguishes from siblings like list_agents and use_skill. It also specifies the context of use by mentioning after selecting from list_agents.
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 provides clear guidance to first select an agent using list_agents before using this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct alternatives beyond the implied workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
use_skillUse Rails SkillARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Read one public Rails Agent Skill by name after selecting it from list_skills. Returns the full SKILL.md instructions plus structured metadata. This tool is read-only and has no repository side effects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skill_name | Yes | Skill name, for example code-review or write-tests. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Normalized skill name, or null when not found. |
| path | Yes | Repository path to the skill's SKILL.md file, or null when not found. |
| error | Yes | Error message when the skill cannot be loaded. |
| found | Yes | Whether the requested skill was found. |
| content | Yes | Full SKILL.md instructions, or null when not found. |
| category | Yes | Skill category, or null when not found. |
| description | Yes | Short routing description, or null when not found. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Load and return'), which is sufficient for this simple retrieval tool. It does not disclose error handling for missing skills, but that is acceptable for a basic tool.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every element serves a clear purpose.
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 simplicity of a single-parameter retrieval tool, no output schema, and a sibling tool, the description provides sufficient information for an agent to use it correctly. It covers the action, the resource, and the input.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds context ('Rails development skill') but no additional meaning beyond the parameter examples given in the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Load and return') and identifies the resource ('full SKILL.md instructions') and scope ('Rails development skill'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'list_skills'.
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 for retrieving a specific skill's instructions but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. 'list_skills' (e.g., 'Use this when you need the full content of a skill; use list_skills to see available skill names').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
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
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!