Check the security vetting status of an uploaded skill version. / 업로드 스킬의 보안 검수 상태 확인.
upload_skill 결과에서 받은 version_id와 API 키가 필요합니다.
Args:
version_id: 스킬 버전 ID (upload_skill 결과의 version_id 또는 vetting_job_id)
api_key: 개발자 API 키 (스킬 소유자만 조회 가능)
Returns:
검수 상태 메시지
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | ||
| version_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool requires an API key and that only the skill owner can perform the query, conveying an ownership restriction. It also implies a read-only operation (checking status). Beyond this, it does not elaborate on return states or side effects, but the output schema likely covers return structure.
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 well-organized with an Args/Returns structure and is not overly long. However, it duplicates content in English and Korean, which adds some redundancy. Each sentence serves a purpose (localization), so it remains acceptable, but not maximally concise.
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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: prerequisites (version_id from upload_skill), authentication (api_key), and permission (owner only). It does not discuss alternative tools or edge cases, but for a status-checking tool with two well-described parameters, this is sufficiently 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?
The description gives detailed, meaningful explanations for both parameters beyond the schema: 'version_id' is identified as the one from upload_skill results or a vetting_job_id, and 'api_key' is described as the developer API key with an owner-only access restriction. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
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 function: 'Check the security vetting status of an uploaded skill version.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_vetting_result,' which may serve a similar or overlapping purpose. Thus, it is clear but not fully distinguishing.
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 context on when to use this tool: it requires a version_id from a previous upload_skill call and an API key, with the note that only the skill owner can query. This establishes a prerequisite and auth requirement, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.
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.
Several tool pairs overlap in purpose: check_vetting_status vs get_vetting_result both query security vetting, and get_agent_author_stats vs get_agent_identity_stats both provide agent statistics. Though descriptions are detailed and clarify differences, the similar names and overlapping functionality create potential selection confusion.
Tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., search_skills, upload_skill, get_skill). Minor inconsistency exists between check_* and get_* for related status operations, but overall convention is clear.
With 18 tools, the server is moderately comprehensive, covering search, upload, download, vetting, reviews, and platform compatibility. This is slightly above the typical 3-15 well-scoped range but not excessive given the store's multi-faceted domain.
Core lifecycle is mostly covered: registration, upload, search, retrieval, download, review, and vetting. However, there are notable gaps—no update or delete operations for uploaded skills, and no method to fetch existing reviews, only post them.