suede-skills-mcp

List Suede Specialties

list_suede_specialties

Read-onlyIdempotent

List Suede specialties, sub-lanes, and skill counts so you can choose a specialty before listing or searching its skills.

Instructions

List the pack's specialities, their sub-lanes, and how many skills each holds. Call this first to pick a specialty, then pass it to list_suede_skills or search_suede_skills.

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_specialties"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`specialties`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile needs no restating. Beyond that, the description adds workflow-level context: this is the entry point that produces a specialty identifier required by the downstream skill tools, and it discloses the aggregate shape (sub-lanes, counts) of what comes back.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the purpose front-loaded and the workflow hint second. Every clause carries information an agent needs to pick and use the tool.

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 parameterless, read-only listing tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the definition supplies everything needed to invoke it and route onward. The only small gap is that domain terms like 'pack' and 'sub-lanes' are left unexplained, though they are unlikely to block a correct call.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly says nothing about arguments and instead spends its words on the output and follow-up call.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the pack's specialities') and enumerates what the listing contains: sub-lanes and per-specialty skill counts. It is clearly separated from the sibling skill-level tools (list_suede_skills, search_suede_skills), which an agent can distinguish without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit sequencing ('Call this first') plus the concrete next step ('pass it to list_suede_skills or search_suede_skills'), naming both alternatives. This is a textbook when-to-use plus what-to-do-next instruction with no inference left to the agent.

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

Deploy Server