get_skillLoad a Bestax skill's instructions, or retrieve a reference document for deeper detail when needed.
A skill's instructions, or one of its reference documents. Load the skill first; pull a reference only when you need that depth.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Skill name, e.g. "bestax-theming" or "theming" | |
| reference | No | Reference id from list_skills, e.g. "css-variables" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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. The description adds the two-mode behavior (instructions vs. reference) but says nothing about content size, failure modes for unknown skill names, or prerequisites.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the sequencing advice. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers both invocation modes adequately. It stops short of explaining what a 'skill' is or how names resolve, which is a minor gap given the sibling list_skills.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, with examples for both 'name' and 'reference', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds a usage nuance for 'reference' (pull only when depth is needed) but no format or syntax beyond the schema.
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 names the resource (a skill's instructions or one of its reference documents) and the retrieval mode, distinguishing it from list_skills which enumerates them. The verb is implied rather than stated ('A skill's instructions'), but an agent can still tell what it returns.
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?
It gives explicit sequencing guidance ('Load the skill first') and a condition for the optional reference parameter ('only when you need that depth'). It does not name siblings like list_skills as alternatives, but the when/when-not advice for the two modes is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.