Fetch generated read-only platform adapter content, currently Cursor rule adapters for skill packages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Slug of the skill to generate a platform adapter for. | |
| platform | No | Target platform for the adapter (defaults to 'cursor'). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| policy | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description adds minimal extra behavioral context beyond stating 'read-only'. No contradictions, but no new side effects or constraints are disclosed.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope.
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 an output schema exists, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does. No additional return value explanation is needed, and the explanation fits the tool's simplicity.
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 100%, and the tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameters. It simply restates that the tool fetches adapters, without clarifying slug or platform specifics beyond the 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 clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'generated read-only platform adapter content', with a specific example 'currently Cursor rule adapters for skill packages'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like install.compatibility or install.setup.
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 fetching platform adapters for skill packages but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like install.compatibility or install.guidance. No when-not-to-use or exclusions are provided.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes, especially with clear prefixes. However, there is some overlap between entry.safety and entry.trust (both deal with safety/trust metadata), and between registry.recommend and registry.plan (both provide recommendations). The descriptions help differentiate but some ambiguity remains.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: a domain prefix (entry, install, registry, submission) followed by a descriptive noun, all lowercase with underscores. This makes the surface predictable and easy to navigate.
27 tools is slightly high but reasonable given the broad scope of the HeyClaude registry, which includes browsing, recommending, installing guidance, and submission preparation. The count is appropriate for the server's purpose.
The tool surface is comprehensive, covering search, detail, comparison, safety/trust analysis, install setup for multiple clients, recommendation, and a full submission pipeline (validation, review, schema, etc.). There are no obvious gaps for the intended read-only registry directory functionality.
