List KeeSpecs skills: which read to call and when. Free.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_skills"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in structured data: the tool is "Free" (no x402 payment), which matters given the payment-oriented siblings. It says nothing about result size, ordering, or whether the returned identifiers feed directly into read_skill.
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 sentence plus a cost tag, front-loaded with the resource being listed. Nothing is padded, though the fragment "Free." and the compressed clause "which read to call and when" trade a little clarity for brevity.
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 zero-parameter read-only lister, the main remaining gap is that there is no output schema and the description does not say what a listing entry looks like or whether its values are the identifiers accepted by read_skill. That linkage is exactly what an agent needs to chain the two tools, and it is left implicit.
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 tool takes zero parameters and the description correctly offers none, so there is nothing to mis-specify. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.
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?
"List KeeSpecs skills" gives a specific verb plus resource, and "which read to call and when" signals it is a discovery/catalog tool rather than a content reader, which implicitly contrasts with read_skill. The phrasing is slightly awkward and never says what a KeeSpec skill actually is, so it stops short of a clean 5.
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?
"which read to call and when" hints that you call this before read_skill to pick a target, but the guidance is implied rather than stated: read_skill is never named and no when-not condition is given. An agent can infer the discovery-then-read flow, but only by reasoning about the sibling name.
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.