knowledge-gateway-mcp

Load a found skill

load_skill

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a complete skill by exact name from search_skills, or load specific skill-relative files like references/api.md instead of SKILL.md.

Instructions

Load the complete skill for an exact skill name returned by search_skills.

Tool call template

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "load_skill"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Exact skill name returned by search_skills.
`files`	No	Optional skill-relative files to load instead of SKILL.md, such as references/api.md.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 29, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds a meaningful precondition (exact name) and mentions loading the complete skill, but does not disclose return format or behavior when the name is not found.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler, placing the core action and the key precondition before anything else. It earns its place without redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple load operation with a rich annotation set and fully described schema, the description plus schema cover the essential call context. The only minor gap is the absence of an explicit statement of what 'complete skill' returns, but no output schema was expected to be summarized.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and clearly documents both parameters, including the optional files parameter with an example. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so it stays at the baseline.

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 ('Load') and resource ('the complete skill'), and scopes it to an exact name returned by search_skills. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search_skills, which is for finding skills rather than loading them.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The phrase 'exact skill name returned by search_skills' establishes the prerequisite workflow: call search_skills first, then load. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives, but with only one sibling the routing is clear.

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

Deploy Server