Bulk-fetch every skill tagged with the given group name. Respects the bootstrap gate per-skill: -public suffix bypasses, everything else needs session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the auth/session requirements per skill (the -public suffix bypass). However, it omits return format, pagination, error behavior, and any side effects. For a bulk fetch, this leaves significant gaps.
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 two concise sentences that front-load the primary action and then provide the key gate condition. There is no filler, and every sentence earns its place. It could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient.
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?
For a bulk-fetch tool with no output schema, the description does not specify the return format, error cases, pagination, or limits. The auth requirement is covered, but an agent would likely need additional assumptions about the response structure. Adequate but incomplete.
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 coverage is 50%; the description adds meaning to both parameters. It clarifies that `name` is the group name and explains when `session_token` is needed (unless the skill name ends with -public). This goes beyond the schema, but it does not elaborate on name constraints or return shape, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.
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 action (bulk-fetch) and resource (skills tagged by group name), which distinguishes it from get_skill (single skill) and list_skills (general listing). However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it misses the top score for explicit differentiation.
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 the context of the bootstrap gate (when session is needed), which is a usage constraint, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives like list_skills or get_skill. Usage guidance is implied rather than stated.
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.