get_pricingSkillfolio pricing: what is free (resume rebuild, AI interview, full preview) and what Full Access at $29.99/month includes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| answer | Yes | The answer about Skillfolio. | |
| source | Yes | The page this information comes from. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "answer": {
+ "description": "The answer about Skillfolio.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "source": {
+ "description": "The page this information comes from.",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "answer",
+ "source"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety info. The description adds contextual detail about the content (free vs. paid features) but no additional behavioral traits like rate limits or side effects. This is adequate given 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's name and immediately provides the key content: what is free and what Full Access includes. No wasted words.
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, parameterless pricing tool with an existing output schema, the description is complete. It covers both free and paid aspects, and the presence of an output schema means return-value details are already handled elsewhere.
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?
There are zero parameters, so schema provides no parameter details. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output content rather than parameter syntax. No further explanation of parameters is needed.
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 provides pricing information, specifying both the free features and the paid Full Access tier at $29.99/month. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings about_skillfolio and how_to_get_started, which are broader topics.
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 this tool is used when users ask about pricing or what's included in plans, but it does not explicitly state when to use it compared to alternatives. No exclusions or alternative references are provided, so guidance is only implied.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct: about covers product overview, get_pricing covers pricing, get_profile and show_example_profile both surface profile content but differ in purpose (lookup by handle vs. random example), how_to_get_started and start_profile_draft both relate to profile creation but one is instructions and the other is actual creation. Descriptions are detailed enough to disambiguate.
All tool names use snake_case and mostly follow an action_noun pattern (about, get, how_to_get_started, show, start). The pattern is a mix of verbs and phrases but consistent in style. Minor inconsistency: 'about_skillfolio' uses 'about' instead of a verb like 'get_info' or 'describe', but it's readable.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a product information and profile creation assistant. Each tool serves a distinct purpose and the count is within the ideal range (3-15). No bloat or sparsity.
The server covers key user journeys: learning about the product, pricing, getting started, seeing an example, looking up a published profile, and creating a draft. Minor gaps: no tool to update a profile, view interview answers directly (though it's included in get_profile/show_example_profile), or manage subscription, but these are not central to the assistant's purpose.