List all supported platforms (ClaudeCode, Cursor, CodexCLI, GeminiCLI, OpenClaw, CustomAgent, etc.). / 지원 플랫폼 목록.
Returns:
플랫폼 목록 문자열
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 of disclosing behavioral traits. The verb 'list' and the return statement ('Returns: 플랫폼 목록 문자열') imply a safe, read-only operation, but there is no explicit mention of side effects, auth requirements, or other behavioral details. The description gives basic transparency but leaves room for more.
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 extremely concise with a clear structure: a one-sentence purpose plus a return note. The English and Korean phrases are somewhat redundant, but overall there is minimal waste and the key 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 zero-parameter, simple listing tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it names the tool's action, lists examples of the returned platforms, and explicitly states the return type (a string). No additional context is needed for an agent to use this tool correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the description need not add parameter-level detail. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately omits any param explanation, which is sufficient.
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 purpose: 'List all supported platforms' with concrete examples (ClaudeCode, Cursor, etc.). This is a specific verb+resource combination that uniquely identifies the tool and distinguishes it from siblings like list_categories.
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?
Usage is implied by the declarative 'List all supported platforms' — if an agent needs to know what platforms are available, this tool is the obvious choice. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, so it stops short of providing full context.
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.