Retrieve complete technical guidelines, operational instructions, and code references for a named skill, helping you apply reverse-engineering, hooking, or APK-analysis workflows correctly.
Ambil pedoman teknis lengkap, petunjuk operasional, dan referensi kode dari suatu skill berdasarkan namanya.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skill_name | Yes | Nama skill, misalnya 'android-apk-smali-surgery', 'frida-dynamic-hooking', 'cf-bypass', dll. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It does characterize the payload (full technical guidelines, operational instructions, code references), which implies a read-only, potentially large retrieval, but it says nothing about behavior when the skill name is unknown, whether output is truncated, or how large the returned guide can be.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence naming the action, the returned content, and the key, with zero filler. Nothing in it could be removed without losing meaning.
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 lookup with no output schema, the description adequately conveys content type but omits what an agent most needs beyond that: failure behavior for unknown skill names and an indication of return size or structure.
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 100% and the single parameter already carries an explanation with concrete example skill names. The description only restates that lookup is by name, adding no format, casing, or matching-rule details beyond the schema – 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?
States a specific verb ('Ambil' – retrieve) and resource ('pedoman teknis lengkap, petunjuk operasional, dan referensi kode dari suatu skill') plus the lookup key ('berdasarkan namanya'). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_rule or search_skills, which an agent must choose between.
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: an agent infers it should call this when it already knows a skill name and wants its documentation. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus search_skills (to find a skill) or get_rule (to fetch a rule), and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.