get_skillLoad a bundled skill’s full SKILL.md workflow instructions by name (from list_skills). Follow the loaded instructions to run that workflow with the other tools. Read-only, free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | bundle name from list_skills, e.g. hermoso-generate |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Read-only, free,' reinforcing the safety profile and introducing a cost-free trait. It also explains that the output is workflow instructions to follow, which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction found.
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?
Two concise sentences with no redundancy. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the safety/free note is placed at the end without bloating the text. Every sentence earns its place.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety), the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, where to find the input, and how to use the result. Nothing essential is missing.
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 already provides a descriptive parameter name and example ('bundle name from list_skills, e.g. hermoso-generate') with 100% coverage. The description repeats the source ('from list_skills') but adds no new meaning about the parameter itself, so it stays at the baseline of 3.
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 states a specific action ('Load'), a specific resource ('bundled skill's full SKILL.md workflow instructions'), and a clear input source ('by name from list_skills'). It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_skills (which lists names), save_skill, and delete_skill by focusing on retrieval for execution.
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?
It explicitly instructs to first get names from list_skills and then follow the loaded instructions to run the workflow. This provides a clear when-to-use context. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the workflow is implied: load when you need instructions for a skill you intend to execute.
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.
With 293 tools, the surface is enormous and many tools have overlapping purposes—multiple posting tools (post_to_meta, post_to_linkedin, schedule_post, etc.), multiple analytics tools per channel, and several search tools (search_meta_ads, search_instagram, search_reddit...). While each description is detailed, the volume makes it difficult for an agent to reliably distinguish between similar tools without careful reading, leading to frequent misselection.
The naming is largely consistent with a verb_noun pattern (post_to_*, list_*, create_*, delete_*, update_*, manage_*). There are clear families for major operations. A few outliers like 'google_business_account', 'hermoso_capabilities', and 'store_get' break the pattern, but the overwhelming majority follow a predictable structure, making navigation somewhat easier.
293 tools is far beyond any reasonable scope for a single MCP server, even for a comprehensive marketing platform. The calibration guide flags 50+ as an extreme mismatch, and this is nearly six times that threshold. Such a large surface overwhelms context windows, increases the probability of misselection, and makes it impractical for agents to learn or use effectively.
The tool set covers a vast domain: ad creation and rendering, posting across nine+ social channels, analytics and reporting, file management (Drive/OneDrive), competitor research, brand management, and more. It appears to provide CRUD and lifecycle coverage for most resources. While there may be minor gaps given the immense scope, the overall coverage is impressively comprehensive.