Recommend Wikivibe AI-agent skills from a safe project summary: frameworks, dependencies, file paths, goals and problems. Do not send source code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal | No | What the user wants the agent to achieve. | |
| files | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| locale | No | ru | |
| category | No | Optional category slug. | |
| problems | No | ||
| frameworks | No | ||
| dependencies | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description only mentions the tool is for 'safe' project summaries but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool calls an external API, mutates data, or requires authentication. For a recommendation tool, more transparency is needed.
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 a single sentence with a clear warning, making it concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose within the space constraint.
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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the recommendation process, return format, or how to effectively use the 8 parameters. The warning about source code is helpful but not enough for complete understanding.
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 only 25% (2/8 parameters explained). The description lists input types (frameworks, dependencies, etc.) but adds no additional meaning for parameters like locale (default 'ru'), limit, or files. With low coverage, the description should provide more parameter guidance.
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 recommends Wikivibe AI-agent skills from a project summary, listing specific inputs (frameworks, dependencies, goals, problems). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_skills by being recommendation-focused.
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 implicitly indicates usage when a project summary is available and warns not to send source code. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like search_skills for more targeted queries.
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 resource and action: get for single items, list for collections, search for finding, and recommend for project-based suggestions. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., get_article, search_skills). The verbs and nouns are clearly descriptive and uniform across the set.
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a public knowledge server covering articles, design templates, and AI skills. Each tool serves a clear role without redundancy or overload.
The tool set provides comprehensive read and search operations for all three content types, plus a recommendation feature. Minor gaps exist, such as no listing of all articles by section or pagination support, but core workflows are covered.
