Browse public skills from the community. Free-tier and rate-limited. Filter by category, search, or sort by popularity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Search skills by name/description | |
| sort | No | Sort order: popular or new (default: new) | |
| category | No | Filter by category: custom, trading, research, monitoring |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool is free-tier and rate-limited, which is useful operational behavior. However, it does not mention the response format, pagination, or any other behavioral nuances, leaving gaps for an agent to anticipate.
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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the main purpose and then add constraints and filtering options. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail, making it highly 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?
Given the tool's low complexity—three optional parameters with full schema descriptions and no required inputs—the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand what the tool does and its key capabilities. Since there is no output schema, the description need not detail return values, but it could mention pagination or result structure. Overall, it is adequately complete for this simple browse tool.
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 covers all three parameters (q, sort, category) with clear descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'filter by category, search, or sort by popularity' merely paraphrases the schema without adding semantic detail, so it stays at the baseline.
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 tool's purpose: 'Browse public skills from the community,' identifying the verb and resource. It also mentions filtering, search, and sorting, which distinguishes it from simple list tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'explore_public' or 'list_skills,' so it falls short of a perfect score.
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 context that this is for public community skills and is free-tier with rate limits, which implies suitable use cases. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'list_skills' or 'get_public_skill,' and does not state any exclusions or prerequisites. The usage scenario is implied but not clearly articulated.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple market query tools (scan_markets, screen_markets, get_market_detail, get_market_diff, get_market_history, inspect_ticker) and legislative tools (legislation, get_legislation, list_legislation, query_gov). Aliases like get_heartbeat_config/get_heartbeat_status and explore_public/explore_theses add further confusion. An agent would struggle to select the correct tool without deeply reading each description.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, update_), but there are notable deviations: 'legislation' lacks the 'get_' prefix, 'stt' and 'tts' are acronyms, 'monitor_the_situation' is a full phrase, and 'x_account/x_news/x_volume' use a non-standard prefix. The overall style is readable, but the mixed conventions reduce predictability.
108 tools is extreme for any server, even one covering prediction markets, trading, portfolio management, forum, skills, and speech. The massive surface area overwhelms agents and makes the server feel more like a platform than a coherent toolkit. This many tools inevitably leads to redundancy and maintenance burden.
The server covers an impressively broad domain: market data, thesis management, intents, strategies, positions, portfolio, forum, skills, legislative and economic queries, and audio/visual processing. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete for skills/theses, no update for some portfolio items) but core workflows are well-supported. Overall lifecycle coverage for most entities is strong.
