Lists AI skills provided by installed QUIQQER packages. Use at the start of non-trivial QUIQQER tasks when package-specific instructions may apply. Match the returned descriptions to the task and load the relevant skills with quiqqer_mcp_skill_get before making changes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only discovery operation through 'Lists' and 'before making changes,' but it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects or describe what each returned entry contains beyond being a description.
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 and well structured: it states the purpose, gives the usage context, and explains the next step. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is 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?
For a simple listing tool with one optional parameter it conveys the workflow well, but it leaves the category parameter undocumented and does not clarify how this tool differs from quiqqer_skill_list. The lack of an output schema is only partially compensated by the mention of 'returned descriptions.'
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 0%, and the description never mentions the 'category' parameter. An agent is left to guess whether category is a filter, a grouping key, or something else, and no acceptable values or format are given.
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 ('Lists') and the resource ('AI skills provided by installed QUIQQER packages'). It is distinct enough from the 'get' siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named quiqqer_skill_list.
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 for when to use the tool: 'at the start of non-trivial QUIQQER tasks when package-specific instructions may apply.' It also names the follow-up tool, quiqqer_mcp_skill_get, but does not state when not to use it or compare it with quiqqer_skill_list.
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.
The two list tools and two get tools are functionally identical, differing only by prefix. An agent cannot reliably determine whether to call quiqqer_mcp_skill_get or quiqqer_skill_get, though list vs get is at least clear.
The set mixes quiqqer_mcp_skill_* and quiqqer_skill_* naming conventions for the same operations, and the server name 'IBAN Validation MCP' has no relation to QUIQQER or skill retrieval. No predictable naming pattern emerges.
Four tools is not an unreasonable number, but the surface is padded with two duplicate pairs that reduce the effective count to two. The count is acceptable only if the redundancies are treated as accidental.
Given the server name, users would expect IBAN validation operations, but the tools only retrieve QUIQQER skill metadata and instructions. There are no validation, format-checking, or account-related operations at all.
