Show public metadata for a single skill; full content remains gated
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"name": "<name>"
},
"name": "show_skill"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that only public metadata is returned and that full content 'remains gated' — a real constraint an agent needs — but says nothing about auth requirements, what happens for a nonexistent skill, or error behavior.
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?
One compact sentence with the key scope ('single skill') and the key limitation ('full content remains gated') front-loaded. Nothing is padded or redundant.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the gating note is valuable, but the description never sketches what metadata is returned or the failure mode for an unknown name. An agent can call it, but not predict its response with confidence.
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 description coverage is 0% and the single 'name' parameter has a kebab-case pattern that is documented only in the schema. The description adds no meaning about what 'name' expects (skill slug vs display name) or the format, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Show public metadata for a single skill'), and the word 'single' plus 'metadata' implicitly separates it from the list_skills/search_skills siblings. It does not name those siblings, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'a single skill' suggests this is the lookup-by-name path versus the sibling list/search tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. No prerequisites or alternative routing are 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.