Get the full schema for invoking a skill - interface spec, input/output schemas, permissions, and capability tags. / 스킬 호출용 전체 스키마 조회.
인터페이스, 입출력 스키마, 권한, 능력 태그 등을 반환합니다.
Args:
skill_id: 스킬 ID
Returns:
스킬 호출 스키마 정보
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skill_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 carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (interface, schemas, permissions, tags) which is useful. However, it does not mention whether this is a safe read-only operation or any prerequisites, though it is implied by the nature of a schema getter.
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 with clear sections for Args and Returns, and it is front-loaded with the English summary. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description is mostly sufficient. It covers purpose and parameters, but lacks explicit usage context or alternatives. Overall, it is complete enough for a straightforward schema retrieval tool.
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%, so the description must compensate. It only provides a translated label for skill_id ('스킬 ID') with no additional detail beyond what the parameter name already implies. This is minimal compensation.
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 gets the full schema for invoking a skill, listing specific components (interface spec, input/output schemas, permissions, capability tags). This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_skill.
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 skill's invocation schema but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_skill. It provides clear context but no exclusions or alternative references.
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.