Read a composable skill definition
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Skill name. Available: grc-review, tide-diagnostics, tide-integration, tide-learning-capture, tide-mcp-qa, tide-rbac-and-e2ee, tide-red-team, tide-reviewer, tide-route-and-api-protection, tide-scenario-resolver, tide-security-analyst, tide-setup, tide-solutions-architect |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / name / descriptionPrevious value: -"Skill name. Available: tide-diagnostics, tide-integration, tide-learning-capture, tide-mcp-qa, tide-rbac-and-e2ee, tide-red-team, tide-reviewer, tide-route-and-api-protection, tide-scenario-resolver, tide-security-analyst, tide-setup, tide-solutions-architect"New value: +"Skill name. Available: grc-review, tide-diagnostics, tide-integration, tide-learning-capture, tide-mcp-qa, tide-rbac-and-e2ee, tide-red-team, tide-reviewer, tide-route-and-api-protection, tide-scenario-resolver, tide-security-analyst, tide-setup, tide-solutions-architect"Input schema / properties / name / descriptionPrevious value: -"Skill name. Available: tide-diagnostics, tide-integration, tide-learning-capture, tide-mcp-qa, tide-rbac-and-e2ee, tide-reviewer, tide-route-and-api-protection, tide-scenario-resolver, tide-security-analyst, tide-setup, tide-solutions-architect"New value: +"Skill name. Available: tide-diagnostics, tide-integration, tide-learning-capture, tide-mcp-qa, tide-rbac-and-e2ee, tide-red-team, tide-reviewer, tide-route-and-api-protection, tide-scenario-resolver, tide-security-analyst, tide-setup, tide-solutions-architect"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation, and the description's use of 'Read' aligns with that. However, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation—it doesn't mention whether the operation returns raw content, has any side effects, or requires authentication. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, the description is acceptable 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is extremely concise and to the point, which is ideal for a straightforward read operation.
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 simple tool with one parameter, the description is fairly complete in defining its actionUTE. However, it lacks context on when to use this vs. sibling tools (like tide_list) and does not describe the format or nature of the returned skill definition. This leaves some ambiguity in practical usage.
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%, so the parameter 'name' is fully described with a list of valid values. The description itself does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema. Since the schema provides the necessary information, the description meeting the baseline is sufficient.
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 'Read a composable skill definition' clearly states the verb (read) and resource (composable skill definition). It is specific enough to understand the tool's function, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from siblings like tide_list, which might also involve skills. The parameter description lists available skill names, reinforcing the purpose.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tide_list or tide_playbook. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios. Users must infer that this retrieves a specific skill's definition, but no explicit comparison or use-case context is given.
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: reading specific document types (adapter, canon, gaps, playbook, etc.), performing assessments (blast_radius, security_analysis), branding, deployment decision, and listing content. However, some reading tools like tide_canon and tide_gaps could be confused, and the multiple scenario-related tools (scenario, bootstrap, manifest, roles) require careful reading of descriptions to differentiate.
All tools use the 'tide_' prefix with snake_case, which provides a strong pattern. However, the naming mixes nouns (tide_canon, tide_gaps) with verb phrases (tide_choose_playbook, tide_list), and some tools like tide_dpop_asset are less intuitive. The pattern is mostly consistent but not strictly verb_noun.
With 19 tools, the set is on the higher end for a single server. While many are necessary for the broad scope of reading various reference materials and performing analyses, the count feels slightly excessive. A few tools could be consolidated or removed to improve focus.
The tool surface covers reading all major reference documents, performing security assessments, branding, deployment decisions, and scenario matching. For the stated purpose of a 'Tide agent pack', it appears comprehensive. Minor gaps might include a tool for overall system health or status, but the core workflows are well-covered.