List all registered Smithers skills to discover available capabilities for AI agent integration.
List all registered Smithers skills
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": "smithers_skills_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It says 'List' implying a read-only operation, but fails to disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, caching, or response format.
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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose in minimal words.
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?
Given the simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools like smithers_skill_get), the description provides basic context. However, it lacks details about what is returned (just names, or full details) and how it relates to other skill-related tools.
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?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. However, the baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly clarifies the resource being listed (Smithers skills).
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 'List all registered Smithers skills' clearly specifies a verb ('List') and a resource ('registered Smithers skills'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like smithers_skill_get (single skill) and smithers_skill_execute (execute 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as smithers_skill_get for a specific skill or smithers_mcp_list for MCPs. The description only states what it does without providing context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.