Bijon Portfolio MCP Server

by Bijon2002

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

getSkills

Retrieve a categorized list of technical skills including programming languages, frameworks, libraries, and tools to assess expertise areas.

Instructions

List Bijon's structured technical skills categorized by programming languages, frameworks/libraries, and tools/other technologies.

Tool call template

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": "getSkills"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates the tool is read-only by using 'List' and describes the output structure (categorized skills). It does not contradict any annotations (none present), and provides sufficient context for agent decision-making.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word provides value: it states the action, the owner (Bijon), the data type (structured technical skills), and the categorization scheme. No waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that there are no parameters, no output schema, and simple read-only intent, the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool returns and how the data is organized, which is sufficient for a straightforward list operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and there are no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, but since the schema already fully documents the parameterless signature, this is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

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 resource 'Bijon's structured technical skills' with clear categorization (programming languages, frameworks/libraries, tools/other technologies). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like getProjects and getCertificates by specifying the nature of the data (structured skills) and its categorization.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies its usage context: when an agent needs to retrieve structured technical skills for Bijon. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like askAboutBijon or getProfile, nor does it provide any exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server