ennodia_list_skillsLists available prompt-only skills from project, user, and built-in directories without exposing full instructions. Optionally accepts a working directory to locate project-specific skills.
Discover prompt-only skills from project, user, and built-in skill directories without returning full instruction text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | Optional working directory to locate project-specific skills. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral disclosure — that the listing deliberately omits full instruction text — which tells the agent it must follow up elsewhere to actually read a skill. It stops short of describing ordering or result shape.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: it leads with the action and resource, then immediately qualifies the scope and the output limitation. 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 zero-required-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover what an agent needs: what is listed, from where, and the key fact that instruction bodies are not included. Nothing essential 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single 'cwd' parameter is already documented as the way to locate project-specific skills. The description says project skills come from directories but adds no semantics beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.
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 gives a specific verb ('Discover') plus resource ('skills') and names the three source scopes (project, user, built-in directories), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the closest sibling ennodia_list_harnesses, but the resource name and the 'prompt-only' qualifier make the distinction reasonably clear.
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?
Usage is implied: this is the discovery call you make before invoking skills. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of prerequisites such as needing a project context, and no routing advice versus ennodia_list_harnesses or ennodia_run.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.