Return one KeeSpecs skill as Markdown (for example read-price). Free.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "read_skill"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Skill id from list_skills |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) and the description is consistent with them. 'Free.' adds genuine behavioral context in a server full of quote_* and x402 tools, implying no payment or quoting step is needed, and 'as Markdown' discloses the response format that no output schema provides.
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 front-loaded sentence states the action, the return format, and an example, with a trailing 'Free.' fragment. It is tight and readable, though the one-word fragment is slightly informal rather than fully structured.
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 full schema coverage, the description covers what it returns (Markdown) and references an example id. Missing only edge behavior such as what happens with an unknown id or whether the Markdown is verbatim, which is minor at this complexity.
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% and the single id parameter is already documented as coming from list_skills. The description adds only the 'read-price' example as a hint at id format, which is marginal beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: return one KeeSpecs skill rendered as Markdown. That distinguishes it from the list-oriented sibling list_skills, though 'KeeSpecs skill' is a term the agent must infer and the example id (read-price) is the main clue to what a skill is.
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: the agent should call this when it already has a single skill id. The routing hint to list_skills appears in the schema ('Skill id from list_skills'), not in the description, so the description itself does not state when to use this versus the sibling.
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.