List all discovered agent skills from the local catalog, showing name, description, and files. Read-only and never executes skill scripts, providing safe visibility.
List all discovered agent skills (name, description, files) from the local skills catalog. Read-only; never executes skill scripts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and explicitly states 'Read-only; never executes skill scripts.' This is valuable safety-relevant context beyond the bare operation. It also names the source as the local skills catalog, giving additional behavioral grounding.
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 two compact sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the safety qualifier is added in a single short sentence. Every phrase earns its place.
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 listing tool, the description is complete: it states the operation, the scope, the source catalog, the returned fields, and the safety guarantee. No additional behavior, prerequisites, or output details are necessary for an agent to invoke this correctly.
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 has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this. With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning. The description already indicates what fields will be returned, which 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the exact resource ('all discovered agent skills') and the source ('local skills catalog'). It also names the important fields returned (name, description, files), which clearly distinguishes this list operation from sibling tools like search_skills and get_skill.
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 clearly frames this as the tool for enumerating all discovered skills from the local catalog, which gives an agent context for when to choose it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion rules, but the 'all' scope implicitly signals it is not for targeted search or retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.