Skip to main content
Glama

Blackbook Protocol Advisor

by io.github.koynlabs

List workflow skills

list_skills
Read-onlyIdempotent

List Protocol Architect workflow skills (Vault, TRS, 95/5, PSC, portal co-pilot). Call when the Owner asks how to set something up; then get_skill for the matching workflow.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoOptional text to filter skill names or descriptions. Example: psc

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
skillsYesDiscoverable skills with name, description, and skill:// URI

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the skill categories but not deeper behavioral details like pagination or output shape; with an output schema present, this is adequate but not rich.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences with no filler. Purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by usage guidance, making it easy for an agent to parse and act on.

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 tool with zero required parameters, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description fully covers what the tool lists, when to use it, and what to do next. No critical context is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the query parameter is already documented as optional text to filter skill names or descriptions with an example. The description adds useful examples of filterable skills, but the schema carries the main semantic weight.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List Protocol Architect workflow skills', and enumerates the skill categories (Vault, TRS, 95/5, PSC, portal co-pilot). It also differentiates from get_skill by framing list_skills as the initial lookup step.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says to call when the Owner asks how to set something up, and routes the agent to get_skill for the matching workflow. This names both the trigger condition and the successor tool, leaving little to inference.

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

All Blackbook Protocol Advisor toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool occupies a distinct step in the intake-to-submission pipeline, with clearly paired tools like prepare_submit_confirmation/confirm_and_submit. A few knowledge/checklist tools such as get_module_playbook, get_skill, and search_book could overlap at the margins, but their descriptions separate modules, workflow skills, and cited passages well enough.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set overwhelmingly follows lower_snake_case action_object naming like get_*, list_*, prepare_*, fill_fields, and open_portal. Minor deviations such as confirm_and_submit and wait_for_user_ready are still imperative and readable, so the naming remains predictable overall.

Tool Count3/5

At 25 tools, the server sits at the top of the 'heavy but borderline' range. The broad advisory/portal-automation scope mostly justifies the count, but several browser-session helpers and guidance/checklist tools could plausibly be consolidated without losing core capability.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the full workflow: intake, risk assessment, guidance, module/skill selection, drafting and review bundles, self-serve or assisted browsing, form filling, and guarded submission. Minor gaps like updating intake data or checking post-submission status are workable rather than fatal.

Resources