Skill History
Server Details
Track download history for 70,000+ agent skills. Search and get daily snapshots.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- pineapple-farm/skill-history
- GitHub Stars
- 2
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools serve clearly distinct purposes: one searches for skills, the other retrieves download history for a specific skill. There is no overlap in functionality.
Both tools follow the verb_noun pattern with underscore separation (get_skill_downloads, search_skills). The naming style is consistent across the set.
With only two tools, the set is minimal but covers the core functionality of searching skills and retrieving their download history. It is appropriately scoped for a focused server, though slightly thin.
The tools cover the main workflow: search for a skill and get its download history. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose, though additional features like listing all skills or comparing histories could be added.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_skill_downloadsGet Skill DownloadsARead-onlyInspect
Get download history snapshots for a ClawHub skill. Returns skill metadata and daily download counts over time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The skill slug (e.g. 'self-preserve') | |
| handle | Yes | The skill author's handle (e.g. 'gavinlinasd') |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| skill | Yes | Skill metadata |
| snapshots | Yes | Daily download snapshots ordered by date ascending |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world hints. Description adds that it returns skill metadata and daily download counts, providing basic behavioral context beyond annotations.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with key info, no redundant words. Highly concise.
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?
Tool has output schema; description is adequate for a read-only data tool with two well-documented params and annotations covering safety.
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 100% with descriptions for slug and handle. Description mentions 'skill metadata and daily download counts' but does not add significant meaning beyond schema.
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 it returns download history snapshots for a ClawHub skill, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'search_skills' by focusing on downloads history.
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?
No guidance on when to use vs. alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or compare to search_skills.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_skillsSearch SkillsARead-onlyInspect
Search for ClawHub skills by name, slug, or author handle. Returns matching skills with their latest download counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results (default 10, max 50) | |
| query | Yes | Search query to match against skill names, slugs, and author handles |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The search query that was used |
| results | Yes | Matching skills sorted by downloads descending |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that the tool returns matching skills with latest download counts, which is beneficial beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination or ordering behavior, which would enhance transparency.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no extraneous words. 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?
Given the presence of an output schema and full parameter coverage, the description is fairly complete. It explains the return value (skills with download counts) but omits details like default ordering or batch limits, which would be useful.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the description does not add new meaning beyond the schema. The tool description restates the query parameter's purpose but does not elaborate further, resulting in no additional 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 explicitly states the tool searches for skills by name, slug, or author handle, and returns matching skills with download counts. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('skills'), and clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_skill_downloads'.
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 implies when to use the tool (to search skills) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives. There is no guidance on choosing between this and 'get_skill_downloads'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!