get_skillFull quality profile for one tool by slug (slugs come from search_skills / get_collection): score breakdown, structural signals, risk level and reasons, platforms, repo link. Direct lookups return any active tool regardless of risk — the risk assessment is part of the answer, not a filter here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that any active tool is returned regardless of risk, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention idempotency, safety, or other typical behavioral aspects.
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 two sentences, with no filler. The first sentence lists contents, the second adds behavioral nuance. Every sentence is essential.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return contents (score breakdown, risk, etc.) and the behavior (no risk filter). Could include a note on response format but is sufficient.
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 single parameter 'slug' is described with context: 'slugs come from search_skills / get_collection'. This adds meaning beyond the schema pattern/constraints, guiding the agent on valid values.
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 'Full quality profile for one tool by slug' and lists the contents, making the purpose clear. It mentions slugs come from other tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like compare_tools or search_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 (use after obtaining a slug) and mentions that risk is not a filter, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide negative examples.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: comparing tools, demand signals, collection details, single tool profile, listing collections, and searching. No functional overlap.
Five tools follow verb_noun pattern (compare_tools, get_collection, get_skill, list_collections, search_skills); demand_pulse is a noun phrase but remains clear. Minor deviation but consistent style.
Six tools is well-scoped for a read-only directory server: core operations (search, list, detail, compare, trends) are covered without bloat.
The tool surface covers all essential query operations: search, list collections, get tool details, compare tools, and demand data. No obvious gaps for its purpose.