Add, remove, or list dynamic skill search paths without restarting the server; changes persist to skill-paths.json in the workspace root.
Add, remove, or list dynamic skill search paths without restarting the server. Persists to skill-paths.json in the workspace root.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | Absolute path to add or remove (not required for 'list') | |
| operation | Yes | Operation to perform |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description's burden is lighter. It still adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations by disclosing the persistence file (skill-paths.json in the workspace root) and the no-restart property, which tells the agent changes are durable and immediately effective.
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 tight sentences with zero filler; the operation set and the persistence side effect are both stated up front with nothing redundant.
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 small two-parameter, no-output-schema tool with annotations covering safety, the definition is nearly complete: it covers operations, persistence location, and the restart-free behavior. Minor gaps remain around error cases (invalid path, duplicates) and whether removal affects already-loaded 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the note that path is unneeded for 'list'. The description adds no further syntax, format, or validation detail (e.g., whether the path must already exist), so it sits at the baseline for schema-covered parameters.
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 specific verbs (add, remove, list) and a precise resource (dynamic skill search paths), so the agent knows exactly what class of operation this is. It implicitly separates itself from the skill-content siblings (install_skill, read_skill) by scoping to search-path configuration, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus install_skill or list_skills, nor any exclusion criteria or prerequisites. The operation enum implies the three modes but the description never states a use case that would select this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.