suede-skills-mcp

Suede Install Options

suede_install_options

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns install options for Codex skills, local plugins, MCP servers, and skill copies so you can choose the correct setup surface.

Instructions

Return public Codex skill, local plugin, MCP, and skill-copy install options.

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": "suede_install_options"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`surface`	No	Install surface to explain.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`plugins`	Yes
`surface`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description only adds the qualifier 'public', indicating the options returned are publicly documented rather than account-specific; nothing about scope, defaults, or pagination is added.

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 or redundancy. It is arguably too terse to be maximally useful, but nothing in it is wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The output schema means return values need not be described, and there is only one optional parameter. However, the description never says what happens when 'surface' is omitted (presumably 'all'), which is the main decision an agent faces when calling this tool, leaving a meaningful gap for a simple tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum values are self-describing, so baseline is 3. The description enumerates surfaces but its list ('skill-copy') does not align with the enum ('all', 'codex', 'plugin', 'mcp', 'claude') and it omits 'all' entirely, so it adds no clarifying meaning beyond the schema.

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 concrete verb ('Return') and resource ('install options') and enumerates the categories covered (Codex skill, local plugin, MCP, skill-copy). It is distinguishable from siblings like list_suede_skills or get_suede_skill, though the jargon terms ('Codex skill', 'skill-copy') are unexplained.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the listing/discovery siblings, no mention of prerequisites, and no hint about which 'surface' value to pick or what the default behavior is. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server