Check the security vetting status of an uploaded skill version. / 업로드 스킬의 보안 검수 상태 확인.
upload_skill 결과에서 받은 version_id와 API 키가 필요합니다.
Args:
version_id: 스킬 버전 ID (upload_skill 결과의 version_id 또는 vetting_job_id)
api_key: 개발자 API 키 (스킬 소유자만 조회 가능)
Returns:
검수 상태 메시지
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | ||
| version_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 a heavier burden. It discloses that the API key is required and that only the skill owner can query ('스킬 소유자만 조회 가능'), and it mentions the source of the version_id. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has other behavioral traits, leaving some ambiguity.
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: a one-sentence purpose, bilingual equivalent, then brief Args and Returns sections. Every part is useful and there is no redundant filler.
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 description gives enough context for a two-parameter status-checking tool: it references upload_skill, explains the required inputs, and notes ownership restrictions. The output schema exists, so the minimal 'Returns' message is acceptable. It does not elaborate on more advanced nuances, but for this simple tool it is sufficiently complete.
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 schema parameters are bare titles, but the description adds meaningful semantics: version_id is '스킬 버전 ID (upload_skill 결과의 version_id 또는 vetting_job_id)' and api_key is '개발자 API 키 (스킬 소유자만 조회 가능)'. This explains the origin and purpose of each parameter, compensating for the 0% schema coverage.
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 function: 'Check the security vetting status of an uploaded skill version.' This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from siblings like check_draft_status (draft status) and get_vetting_result (detailed vetting result).
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 provides context for when to use the tool: after uploading a skill ('upload_skill 결과에서 받은 version_id와 API 키가 필요합니다'), and it notes that API key is required. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.
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, but check_vetting_status and get_vetting_result both deal with security vetting and could be confused. Similarly, get_agent_author_stats and get_agent_identity_stats overlap somewhat, though descriptions differentiate them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., search_skills, upload_skill_draft, get_vetting_result). No mixed conventions or vague verbs.
18 tools is slightly above the typical well-scoped range (3-15), but the coverage of a skill marketplace (search, browse, upload, vet, review, stats, install) justifies the count. It doesn't feel bloated.
Core workflows are covered: search, download, upload, review, and status checks. However, there is no tool to update or delete an uploaded skill, and no way to list skills uploaded by a particular author, which are notable gaps for a marketplace.