Post a review and rating for a skill. / 스킬 리뷰 작성.
정책:
- 한 사용자가 같은 스킬에 최대 1개 리뷰 (재호출 시 수정)
- 본인이 등록한 스킬에는 리뷰 작성 불가
- Rate limit: 10회/시간/IP
Args:
skill_id: 리뷰할 스킬 ID
rating: 평점 (1~5 정수)
comment: 코멘트 (선택, 최대 2000자)
api_key: 개발자/에이전트 API 키 (필수)
Returns:
결과 메시지
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rating | Yes | ||
| api_key | No | ||
| comment | No | ||
| skill_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the one-review limit, update-on-recall behavior, self-review prohibition, and a rate limit (10/hour/IP). These go beyond what a typical schema would reveal, though error-handling details are omitted.
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-structured with headers for policy and arguments. It is bilingual but not verbose; every sentence carries useful information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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 that the tool has an output schema (per context signals), the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers all essential parameters, policy constraints, and rate limits. It's missing explicit error scenarios, but is complete enough for a review submission 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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by adding meaning: rating is an integer 1-5, comment is optional up to 2000 chars, and api_key is described as required (though schema marks it optional with default). This adds value beyond the bare schema types. There is a slight inconsistency in api_key requiredness between description and schema.
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 opens with 'Post a review and rating for a skill', a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools such as upload_skill or validate_compatibility, as no other sibling handles reviews.
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?
Provides clear usage context: one review per user, re-call to update, cannot review own skill. It doesn't name explicit alternatives, but no alternative review tool exists among siblings, so the guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.
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.