list_skillsLists available Bestax Agent Skills so agents can discover task-level guides for forms, theming, layout scaffolding, icons, custom components, migration, and CSS size.
The bestax Agent Skills — task-level guides for forms, theming, layout scaffolding, icons, custom components, migration and CSS size. Read one with get_skill when a task matches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that entries are task-level guides read via get_skill, which is useful context, but says nothing about catalog size, grouping, or freshness that the structured fields don't already convey.
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 with zero waste: the resource and its categories come first, and the routing hint to get_skill follows. Every clause earns its place.
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 parameterless, read-only catalog tool with no output schema, the description supplies enough to act: what the entries are, what topics they cover, and which tool consumes them. It could say more about how results are presented (grouped by category? one per skill?), but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond confirming it is a parameterless enumeration. Baseline 4 applies when there are no parameters to document.
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?
Names the resource (bestax Agent Skills) and enumerates its scope (forms, theming, layout scaffolding, icons, custom components, migration, CSS size), so an agent knows this is a catalog of task-level guides. The listing verb is implied rather than stated, but the sibling routing ('Read one with get_skill') makes the distinction from get_skill unambiguous.
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?
Clearly states the follow-up workflow: browse this list, then call get_skill 'when a task matches'. It gives a clear context for use but never states when not to call it or how it relates to the other siblings (search_bestax, list_components).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.