Return one skill's full body by slug. Session-gated except for -public suffixed skills (guardian bypass). Pass session_token if your client cannot set an Authorization header.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| session_token | No | Optional. The SESSION_TOKEN emitted by bootstrap_session. Pass it here when your client cannot set a per-call Authorization: Bearer header. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the session-gating requirement, the guardian bypass, and the authentication fallback, which are important behavioral traits. It doesn't mention error conditions or rate limits, but for a simple retrieval tool, the key behaviors are covered.
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 sentences, no filler. The essential action and the most critical edge case (session-gating) are front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose.
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 explains how to call the tool, including authentication nuances, and clarifies the resource. It doesn't mention what the response contains beyond 'full body' or handle not-found errors, but for a simple get operation with an existing output schema absent, this is mostly complete. The lack of an output schema is not the description's fault.
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 describes session_token fully (as optional and for header fallback), but slug has no description in the schema. The description clarifies that slug is the identifier by which the skill is fetched. It also reinforces session_token's purpose, complementing the schema description. With 50% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful value.
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 ('Return'), a specific resource ('one skill's full body'), and the criteria ('by slug'). It clearly differentiates from siblings like list_skills (which lists many) and upsert_skill/delete_skill (which modify).
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?
Provides clear usage context: mentions session-gating and a bypass for -public suffixed skills. Also explains when to pass session_token (if client can't set Authorization header). While it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over list_skills, the intended use is implicit from 'by slug'.
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 clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but a few boundaries are fuzzy: leave_message vs ask_human vs leave_comment, and list_content vs list_collection could confuse an agent at first glance. Overall, the descriptions are thorough enough to disambiguate.
The naming convention is predominantly snake_case with verb_noun structure (list_content, read_blob, upsert_skill). Minor deviations exist such as the mysloodsiewnia_* prefix and British spelling in synthesise_persona_patterns, but the pattern is highly recognizable and readable.
At 41 tools, the surface area is very large for a single MCP server and exceeds the 'heavy' threshold. While each tool serves a distinct purpose, the sheer number makes the server feel bloated and harder to navigate; many tools could be grouped or pruned without losing core functionality.
The server covers a broad domain: content read/list, personas, skills management, vault CRUD (except update/delete intentionally), provenance, licensing, memory, and async question/narada workflows. Minor gaps exist like no tool to cancel a narada job or update a memory, but these are workable and the core workflows are well supported.