Skip to main content
Glama

upload_skill_draft

Upload a skill without an API key (zero-friction). Returns a claim_token to track status. Perfect for agents contributing skills autonomously. / API 키 없이 Draft 모드로 스킬 업로드.

▶ 정책:
  - AI 검수(approved)만 수락, 그 외(caution/pending/rejected)는 즉시 삭제.
  - 결과는 sandbox tier + claim_status='draft'. 사람 owner 가 claim 해야 community/검증 경로 진입.
  - 동일 agent_author 의 모든 Draft 는 한 번의 이메일 인증으로 일괄 claim 됨.

▶ 에이전트 필수 동작(MANDATORY — 무시 시 반복 업로드/인증이 실패):
  (1) 최초 업로드 응답의 agent_identity.agent_secret 값을 반드시 저장하라.
      이후 같은 agent_author 로 업로드할 때 agent_secret 파라미터에 동일 값 전달.
      저장/재사용 안 하면 AGENT_SECRET_REQUIRED(401) 로 차단됨.
  (2) 응답의 claim_url, human_action.instruction, agent_identity 를
      사용자(사람)에게 그대로, 링크 형태로 표시하라 (요약·의역 금지).
  (3) 에이전트가 대신 claim 을 완료하려 하지 말 것. contact_email/verify 메일은
      반드시 사람 owner 의 실제 이메일이어야 함.
  (4) human_action_required=true 이면 사용자 응답을 기다려라 — 자동 재시도 금지.

Args:
    agent_author: 에이전트 식별자 (X-Agent-Author 헤더로 전송). 예: "claude-sonnet-4-6@anthropic".
                 같은 이름은 agent_secret 으로만 재사용 가능.
    skill_md: SKILL.md 전체 내용 문자열 (필수).
    files: {"main.py": "...", "util.py": "..."} 형태의 부가 파일 dict (선택).
    requirements: requirements.txt 내용 문자열 (선택).
    contact_email: 업로더 사람 owner 의 이메일 (선택, OPTIONAL).
                  ▶ **사용자 이메일을 모르면 반드시 비워두세요** — 추측·생성한 가짜 이메일은
                    DNS resolve 검증(NXDOMAIN 차단)으로 CONTACT_EMAIL_INVALID(400) 거부됩니다.
                  ▶ 비워두면 응답의 claim_url 을 사람 사용자에게 채팅으로 그대로 보여주면 됩니다
                    (forward_claim_url 시나리오, 권장).
                  ▶ 사용자가 명시적으로 알려준 실제 이메일이 있을 때만 지정. 지정 시 서버가
                    verify 링크를 자동 발송 (24시간 만료, 미인증 시 72시간마다 최대 3회 reminder).
                  ▶ 한 번만 지정하면 되며 이후 업로드엔 불필요. verify 링크를 사람이 클릭하면
                    해당 agent_author 의 모든 Draft 가 그 계정으로 일괄 이전.
    agent_secret: 최초 업로드에서 발급된 secret (2회차 이후 필수).
    claim_token: 같은 Draft 에 새 버전을 추가할 때만 (선택).

Returns:
    업로드 결과 + agent_identity + human_action_required + human_action + claim_url 요약.
    사용자에게 claim_url 과 instruction 을 반드시 surface 하라.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filesNo
skill_mdYes
claim_tokenNo
agent_authorYes
agent_secretNo
requirementsNo
contact_emailNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses critical traits: only AI-approved drafts are accepted, others are immediately deleted; results are sandbox tier with claim_status='draft'; human claim is mandatory; agent_secret must be saved and reused; auto-retry is forbidden; contact_email is DNS-validated; and it specifies error codes like AGENT_SECRET_REQUIRED(401) and CONTACT_EMAIL_INVALID(400).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but well-structured with headers, bullet points, and numbered mandatory steps. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the bilingual Korean/English sections add some redundancy but also accessibility. Every part conveys necessary operational guidance, so the length is justified.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex tool with a human-in-the-loop claim flow, the description fully covers policy, mandatory agent actions, parameter details, and return value usage. It leaves little to no ambiguity about the multi-step process, making it complete even without relying on the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has zero description coverage, but the description provides rich semantics for all seven parameters—agent_author header mapping and reuse rule, skill_md content string, files dict format, contact_email DNS validation and when to omit, agent_secret lifecycle, and claim_token usage for version updates. This goes far beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Upload a skill without an API key' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes this draft-mode tool from the standard upload via zero-friction and claim_token tracking. It also notes it is 'Perfect for agents contributing skills autonomously', which differentiates from sibling tools like upload_skill.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly frames when to use the tool: 'without an API key (zero-friction)' and 'Perfect for agents contributing skills autonomously'. It also provides mandatory workflow context and policy details. However, it does not name alternative tools or state explicit 'do not use when' conditions, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count4/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.