suede-skills-mcp

List Suede Skills

list_suede_skills

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists Suede skills available in the current MCP profile and supports filtering by area or specialty so users can find relevant skill packs to install or use.

Instructions

List Suede skills available through the current MCP profile.

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": "list_suede_skills"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`area`	No	Optional area filter (which plugin bundle ships the skill).
`specialty`	No	Optional specialty filter (how the pack is browsed): ship, craft, found, demand, revenue, position.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`skills`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the scoping fact that results are bounded by the current MCP profile, with no mention of result ordering, pagination, or completeness. That is a small but real contribution beyond the structured data.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scope qualifier is placed where it matters. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the guidance graded above.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a browsing/list tool with two optional filter dimensions and an output schema, the description leaves the agent without any idea that filtering by area or specialty is possible or how this differs from search_suede_skills. Sibling tools make the ambiguity consequential, and the definition does not resolve it.

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 both parameters are enums with descriptions, so the schema carries the semantics. The description never mentions that filters exist, adding nothing beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('List Suede skills') and adds a scope qualifier ('available through the current MCP profile'). It does not distinguish itself from siblings like search_suede_skills or get_suede_skill, so an agent must infer that this is the unfiltered enumeration path.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (search_suede_skills for keyword lookup, get_suede_skill for details, list_suede_specialties for taxonomy), and no exclusions. The agent gets no routing signal at all.

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

Deploy Server