Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Cortex Intelligent

Cortex Intelligent

by adyoi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_agents_skills

Lists agent and skill files for a project root, including each file’s auto-block version, so you can inspect available agents and skills.

Instructions

List agent & skill files and their auto-block versions.

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": {
      "project_root": "<project_root>"
    },
    "name": "list_agents_skills"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_rootYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_root / maxLength
      Added value: +4096
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read/list operation but does not state that it is read-only, what permissions or project state are required, what the 'auto-block versions' represent, or how failures are reported.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single short sentence and is front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. The unexplained 'auto-block versions' phrase makes the sentence less useful than its length suggests.

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?

For a simple one-parameter listing tool, the description gives a high-level idea of the return contents, but with no output schema and no annotations it leaves both the parameter meaning and the result shape under-explained. It is barely minimum viable.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The only parameter, project_root, has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. It adds no meaning about what root path to provide, whether it must exist, or what format is expected.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description uses the verb 'List' with the resources 'agent & skill files' and mentions 'auto-block versions', so the general enumeration purpose is visible. However, 'auto-block versions' is undefined and there is no explicit differentiation from related siblings such as provision_agent_skill or init_agents.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus provision_agent_skill, init_agents, or procedure-related tools. It also omits prerequisites, exclusions, or expected context for the listing operation.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools