get_skillsLook up Monster Hunter World skills by name. Returns descriptions, max ranks, and level-by-level effects to optimize your build.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of skills to return. Defaults to 20. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Number of items returned. | |
| items | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "description": "Number of items returned.",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "items": {
+ "items": {
+ "description": "Skill data from MHW database",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "items",
+ "count"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "limit": 20
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint:true and destructiveHint:false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds return content (descriptions, max ranks, level-by-level effects) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior or rate limits. It adds moderate value beyond the 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?
The description is two concise sentences with no superfluous words. It front-loads the primary action and then provides return details and use case. 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?
The output schema and annotations provide substantial context, so the description need not explain return structure. However, the 'by name' wording creates a gap about how to select a specific skill, which is not resolved by the schema. This missing clarification prevents the description from being fully complete.
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 input schema has one parameter (limit) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. However, the description mentions 'by name', implying a name parameter that does not exist in the schema, which actively misleads an agent about how to invoke the tool. The description should have aligned with the schema or clarified that searching by name is not required.
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 resource (Monster Hunter World skills) and action (look up), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_armor and get_weapons. However, the claim 'by name' is not supported by the input schema, which only includes a 'limit' parameter, introducing ambiguity.
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 a clear use case ('optimize your build') and implies this tool is for skills specifically, given sibling names. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient for an agent to make an informed choice.
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.