Skip to main content
Glama

skill-mcp

An MCP server that serves a directory of Agent Skills. Point it at skills; it lists them, hands out their instructions and their bundled files, and runs only the scripts a skill declares.

It is a generic adapter, not a curated set: the skills are content it reads, and the same build serves whatever it is pointed at.

npx @chrischall/skill-mcp                       # serves the example skill bundled here
SKILLS_DIR=~/my-skills npx @chrischall/skill-mcp

The npm package is @chrischall/skill-mcp (unscoped skill-mcp is taken by someone else on npm). Everything else — the repo, the binary, the registry identity io.github.chrischall/skill-mcp — is unscoped.

What a skill is

A directory holding SKILL.md: YAML frontmatter (name, description, and optionally the mcp-host: block below) followed by instructions, plus whatever files those instructions refer to. Three layouts are found under each root:

<root>/SKILL.md              # the root IS one skill
<root>/<name>/SKILL.md       # a directory of skills
<root>/skills/<name>/SKILL.md

A skill is served under its DIRECTORY name, never under the name in its own frontmatter (a frontmatter name that disagrees is reported and otherwise ignored; where the root itself is the skill, the root directory names it). That is a security rule, not a tidiness one: the owner's grant names a skill, so a bundle that could choose its own name could claim its neighbour's and be handed the neighbour's granted script and granted variables. For the same reason, two directories that really do contribute one name — only possible across two roots — have both refused and reported, rather than one of them winning by scan order.

Related MCP server: MCP Skills Server

The tools

tool

arguments

returns

skill_list

—

every skill found: name, description, when to use it, file count, whether it declares runnable scripts and exactly which; plus problems, so an empty list is never a mystery

skill_load

name

the SKILL.md body verbatim, plus a manifest of the bundle's files. Referenced files are not inlined — that is what skill_file is for

skill_file

name, path

one file from that skill's directory: text, or base64 with its media type. At most 1 MiB, truncated: true rather than a silent cut

skill_run

name, script, args[], confirmToken

{exitCode, stdout, stderr, truncated, durationMs}

skill_file takes one path. The design of record specifies a paths[] batch (8 paths per call, 1 MiB per entry, 4 MiB per call, one bad path failing only its own slot); shipping the singular form is a deliberate deferral, not an oversight, and those three bounds are what a later batching change has to honour. Read the caps as bounds on this server's own heap: they cap the allocation, not only the answer, because a hosted child has a hard 256 MiB data limit and a bundle may be larger than that.

Each skill is also registered as an MCP prompt (its body is the message) and each bundled file as a resource (skill://<name>/<path>), because a client that supports those surfaces presents a skill better than a tool call does. It is a second door, never the only one: when this server runs on mcp-host and a registration narrows enabledTools, prompts/list and resources/list come back empty and the handshake stops advertising those capabilities — so the tools carry the whole experience.

Discovery reports, it never goes quiet

Anything that keeps a directory from being served comes back in skill_list's problems, with the path and the reason: no SKILL.md, frontmatter that will not parse, a name two directories both claim (both refused), a declared script that is not in the bundle, a symlink leading out of the root or out of a skill, a filename the read tools could not address. One bad skill costs itself and never the listing, and there is no third outcome where something is dropped in silence — a symlinked skill directory is served when it stays inside the root (so skills/foo -> ../shared/foo works) and reported when it does not.

The execution fence

skill_run executes third-party code. Every rule below narrows which code runs and what it is handed; each has its own test.

  • Only a script the skill DECLARES. Not "any file under scripts/", not "anything executable". An undeclared path is refused, saying it must be declared and listing the ones that are.

  • Only inside that skill's own directory. The path is checked as a string first (plain segments; no leading /, no . or .., no backslash, no percent escape, no NUL) and then again after resolution: the real path, with symlinks followed, must still be inside the skill's real directory, and it must be a regular file. Both checks, because a string check alone misses a symlink planted inside the bundle and a resolved check alone accepts shapes that should never have been joined. The same discipline governs skill_file: a read out of a skill directory is another skill's bundle at best.

  • An argv array, never a shell string. spawn with shell: false, no interpolation, no sh -c. Arguments are passed through verbatim.

  • An interpreter from a closed set, named by the declaration — never inferred from the extension and never taken from the file's own shebang, since a file that can choose its own interpreter has already chosen its own program. v1 runs node and nothing else (see What v1 cannot run).

  • Bounded, and the call always returns. A wall-clock timeout (60 s default, per-script override, hard 300 s ceiling), 1 MiB captured per stream with truncated: true rather than a silent cut, and one skill_run at a time. On timeout the process group is signalled, which reaches the script and any child that stayed in its group. It does not reach a grandchild that detached into a group of its own, and such a grandchild also holds the stdio pipes open — so the run settles on the process exiting plus a short drain, under a hard deadline, rather than on the pipes closing. That is what guarantees the tool call returns within its budget and frees the one-at-a-time lock; it is not a guarantee that a deliberately detached grandchild is dead. Bounding that is the tier's job (an unprivileged uid, prlimit NPROC, and a machine that stops), not this adapter's.

  • An env allowlist. A script gets PATH, HOME, LANG, TZ, TMPDIR, MCP_DATA_DIR when the host set one, and exactly the variables that script asked for and the owner granted — never this server's own environment. The fixed half mirrors mcp-host's INSTALL_ALLOWLIST (packages/runner-node/src/spawn-env.ts), for the reason that file gives: a host constant a hosted declaration cannot widen by one name. This decides what a script is handed, not what a hostile script can reach. A script runs as the same uid as this server. On Linux a same-uid process can read /proc/<parent pid>/environ, so at boot the server wipes that exec-time environment block (src/scrub-environ.ts; process.env keeps every value) and that one-line read comes back empty. The values still live in the server's memory, reachable through ptrace or /proc/<pid>/mem on a kernel at Yama ptrace_scope = 0. Real isolation between skills that do not trust each other needs the tier (a distinct uid for scripts, /proc mounted hidepid=2, or a non-dumpable server); until then, only put skills in one registration if you would give each of them every credential it holds.

  • A non-zero exit is a normal, reported outcome — exit code, stdout and stderr all come back. It is never an exception that loses the output.

  • skill_run asks before it runs anything. On a client that can show a confirmation prompt (Claude Code) the user is asked there. Otherwise the first call starts no process and returns status: "confirmation-required" with a preview of exactly what would run — the interpreter, the argv, the working directory, the timeout, and the names of the variables the script would be handed — plus a confirmToken. Only a repeat call with the same arguments and that token runs the script, once. A token is bound to that exact run: changing the skill, script or argv is refused as DRAFT_CHANGED, and a used token as TOKEN_REUSED. See Confirmations.

Why the confirmation gate is blanket

The fleet convention gates mutating tools. Whether a given script mutates anything is something this server cannot know: it never reads a script, and it deliberately does not analyse one — a machine-generated verdict about somebody else's code gets trusted in a way an author's declaration does not. Unknown effects are therefore treated as mutating.

The obvious softening — let a skill mark a script read-only and skip the gate for it — is refused because it is circular: the same author wrote the script and the sentence describing it, so a self-declared "read-only" authorizes nothing. That leaves a blanket gate. Its cost is one extra round-trip on a read-only helper; its benefit is that the preview is the one place a caller sees the exact call before any of it happens.

What the fence does NOT buy

A declared script is still arbitrary code. These rules narrow which code runs and with what; none of them makes the code safe. A script you allow can read the whole skills tree, spend the machine's CPU, and send whatever it holds anywhere its network permits. skill_run's output caps are truncation, not confidentiality: nothing redacts a script's stdout, and nothing could.

This is not a sandbox. Run it against skills you have read, or run it somewhere that fences it — under mcp-host that means the isolated tier (fly-machine): a microVM per registration, an unprivileged uid, prlimit bounds, and nftables default-deny with a declared egress allowlist. This server is a narrowing on top of such a fence, not a replacement for one.

What v1 cannot run

The set of interpreters is node, one entry, and that is a measured decision rather than an oversight: mcp-host's runner image is Node + git + tar + util-linux + nftables, with no python3, curl or jq, while real skills are overwhelmingly Python (70 .py against 1 .js in anthropics/skills at 3b3fad96).

So a skill declaring a Python script is reported by skill_list under unavailableScripts, with the interpreter and this deployment's set named, and skill_run refuses it in the same words. Its instructions still serve — an instructions-only skill is a useful skill, and most published skills are exactly that. A pinned interpreter is a follow-up that arrives as a dependency, never as an image change.

The mcp-host: declaration block

Optional, inside SKILL.md's frontmatter:

---
name: weather
description: Forecasts and geocoding.
mcp-host:
  version: 1
  run:
    - script: scripts/forecast.js
      interpreter: node
      env: [WEATHER_API_KEY]     # variables this SCRIPT asks for
      timeout: 30                # seconds; clamped to 300
  env:                           # fields proposed for the SERVER's environment
    - name: WEATHER_API_KEY
      secret: true
  egress: [api.weather.example]  # hosts this skill reaches; a proposal
---

A declaration narrows; it never grants. The author of the scripts also wrote the block naming them, so nothing in it is an authorization — it says which files are entry points and what each wants. What makes a script runnable, and a variable reach it, is somebody else accepting it.

Read strictly: YAML 1.2 core schema, anchors and aliases refused, a 64 KiB cap, an unknown MAJOR version refused wholesale, unknown keys ignored and reported by name, and a block that does not parse reported with the parser's position rather than treated as absent. A broken block costs a skill its scripts, never its instructions, and never the rest of the listing.

Configuration

variable

meaning

MCP_SKILLS_PATH

:-separated slot roots, injected by mcp-host's runner. Wins over everything

SKILLS_DIR

the same thing for local use. Read only when MCP_SKILLS_PATH is unset

MCP_SKILL_RUN

optional JSON [{skill, script, env?}] — the owner's grant. Narrow-only

(neither set)

this package's own skills/ directory

MCP_SKILL_RUN deserves the emphasis. When it is present, what may run is the declaration intersected with it — a row naming a script the skill did not declare grants nothing (and is reported), and a row naming a variable the script did not ask for grants nothing. There is no spelling of it that makes something runnable which a skill did not declare, which is what makes it safe to read from an environment that also carries a registration's own variables.

When it is absent, the default depends on whether a host started this child, and the hosted half is fail-closed.

  • Hosted — any variable mcp-host's runner injects is present (MCP_SKILLS_PATH, MCP_HOST_METER_FILE, MCP_DATA_DIR, MCP_BLOB_BASE_URL): nothing is granted and nothing runs. Every skill's instructions and files are still served — that is a working, useful connector. The reason is that one child holds one environment holding every credential the owner set, so a skill whose frontmatter named its neighbour's variable would otherwise be handed the neighbour's credential with nobody having decided to give it. (That is about what a script is handed; it is not a sandbox — see the env allowlist note above on /proc/<pid>/environ.) It deliberately does not key on MCP_SKILLS_PATH alone: mcp-host does not inject that variable yet, so today's only hosted channel is SKILLS_DIR in a registration's plain env, and that must not land on the open default. The marker check can only ever move the default in the fail-closed direction.

  • Standalone — no injected marker at all: the skill's own declaration stands. Nothing is injecting anything, and the person who pointed the server at a directory is the owner.

skill_list reports which case it is (grantFrom, plus a grantNote in the hosted one) and lists a skill's declared-but-ungranted scripts, so "nothing runs" is never indistinguishable from "nothing was declared".

Confirmations

variable

default

MCP_CONFIRM_MODE

ask-user

What a write does on a client that cannot show a confirmation prompt (claude.ai, Claude Desktop). ask-user: two steps — the first call does nothing and returns a preview plus a token, and the model must get your approval in chat before calling again with it. auto: the same two steps, but the model may use the token after reviewing the preview itself. refuse: writes are refused on such clients. A client that can show prompts (Claude Code) always gets the real prompt. An unrecognised value is treated as refuse.

MCP_CONFIRM_TTL_SECONDS

600

How long a token stays valid.

MCP_CONFIRM_SECRET

random per process

Signing key; set it only if tokens must survive a server restart.

Trust posture

  • This server's code is the operator's; the skills are yours. It reads a fixed set of directories handed to it, fetches nothing, installs nothing, and has no tool that takes a path outside a skill's own directory.

  • It vets nothing. There is no badge, no publisher allowlist, no scan. A skill's instructions and its scripts are exactly as trustworthy as whoever wrote them.

  • A read is treated as dangerously as an execution, because the directory it reads from sits beside everything else on the machine.

  • It caches nothing and stores nothing. The catalog is scanned once at boot and held in memory; no file is written anywhere.

Hosting on mcp-host

mint.yaml at the repo root says how this MCP wants to be registered. Four things it deliberately does not propose, because only a registration can decide them:

  • The runtime — and it could not, by rule. A manifest may never name one (docs/MINT-MANIFEST.md §5): which tier a registration lands on is decided by who is asking, not by the package, since a file that could ask for fly-shared would be a stranger's package requesting a seat on the operator's own machine. A hosted skill server belongs on the isolated tier (fly-machine) with a declared egress policy, and that is the registration's choice to make.

  • The skills themselves. They arrive as a pinned dependency (a github-archive naming a repository and an exact commit) and land in a read-only slot the runner names through MCP_SKILLS_PATH. This package cannot know which ones a given registration carries.

  • state.dataDir. The adapter needs no persistence. Turn it on when a registration's skills have scripts that need somewhere to write — the slot is read-only, so MCP_DATA_DIR (with it on) or TMPDIR (without) is where a script's output goes — and give the reason there.

  • The real egress allowlist. mint.yaml proposes allow: [], which is what the adapter itself needs: it reaches nothing. The hosts a registration needs are the ones its SKILLS declare, shown at the preview with who declared them and accepted by the owner. On the isolated tier a host that is not on the list appears either as an HTTP 403 from the loopback proxy or as a plain timeout — the two are indistinguishable from inside a script, so skill_run attaches a note saying so whenever a call fails on a machine that looks fenced.

Narrowing enabledTools to [skill_list, skill_load, skill_file] is the non-executable switch, enforced at the gateway rather than here — a stronger statement than this server refusing skill_run, and it costs the prompt and resource surfaces entirely.

Development

npm install
npm run build      # tsc → dist/, esbuild → dist/bundle.js
npm test           # tsc typecheck + vitest

This project was developed and is maintained by AI. Use at your own discretion.

Available Tools

4 tools
skill_fileA
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read files a skill bundles. Paths are relative to that skill's own directory; text comes back as text, anything else as base64 with its media type. Ask for every file you need in ONE call — a SKILL.md usually points at several.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe skill's name, exactly as skill_list reports it.
pathsYesUp to 8 paths relative to the skill's own directory, as skill_load lists them. Reading a SKILL.md's referenced files in one call costs one round trip instead of one each.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: relative-path scoping and type-dependent return encoding (text as text, non-text as base64 with media type). No contradiction with the annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences, each adding distinct information: the operation, path resolution and return encoding, and batching guidance. The purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler or redundant restatement.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, path scope, return encoding, and batching, while the schema covers parameter details. The only notable gap is that the response shape for multiple requested paths is not spelled out.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the parameter descriptions already document provenance ('exactly as skill_list reports it', 'as skill_load lists it') and the batching/round-trip rationale. The description mostly repeats the relative-path constraint, so it adds little parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Read files a skill bundles') and clarifies that paths are resolved relative to the skill's directory, so the tool's role is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from skill_load, but the read-file intent is unambiguous among the sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit batching guidance: 'Ask for every file you need in ONE call' and explains why with 'a SKILL.md usually points at several.' It provides clear context for efficient use, though it relies on the schema's parameter descriptions to point the agent to skill_list and skill_load rather than stating alternatives directly.

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

skill_listA
Read-onlyIdempotent

List every Agent Skill this server found: name, description, when to use it, how many files it bundles, and the exact scripts (if any) that may be executed with skill_run. Also reports anything that could not be read, so an empty list is never a mystery.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses failure behavior: it reports anything that could not be read, so an empty list is meaningful. It also surfaces safety-relevant metadata by revealing the exact executable scripts that skill_run may run.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the main purpose and contents, the second adds the important error-reporting behavior. Everything earns its place and the key verb 'List' is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies what will be returned (name, description, usage guidance, file count, scripts) and how failures are reported. No critical information is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description appropriately spends its effort on listing the output fields instead.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every Agent Skill this server found'), and clearly distinguishes this discovery tool from the executing/loading siblings skill_run, skill_load, and skill_file. It also states exactly what entries the list contains.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes clear this is the tool for enumerating all available skills and their metadata, including when to use each skill and what scripts may run. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives, but the listing scope and mention of skill_run imply the intended discovery use case.

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

skill_loadA
Read-onlyIdempotent

Load one skill's SKILL.md instructions verbatim, plus a manifest of the files it bundles. Referenced files are NOT inlined — read them by name with skill_file.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe skill's name, exactly as skill_list reports it.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds critical behavioral detail: content is returned verbatim, a file manifest is included, and referenced files are not inlined. This tells the agent exactly what to expect and how to handle file references.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the important non-inlining caveat is stated immediately after, making the most critical usage note prominent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Completely sufficient for a simple, one-parameter read-only tool. The description covers the return contents, the non-inlining behavior, and points to the relevant sibling for file access. No output schema is needed given the verbatim-loading nature.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'name' is already well-documented with guidance to use the exact name from skill_list. The tool description adds no further parameter detail, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 for full schema coverage.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: loads one skill's SKILL.md instructions verbatim plus a manifest of bundled files. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting referenced files are not inlined and should be read via skill_file.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use context (loading a skill's instructions and manifest) and provides a direct alternative for referenced files: 'read them by name with skill_file.' The input schema further references skill_list for obtaining the exact name, which reinforces routing.

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

skill_runA
Destructive

Execute a script the skill DECLARES as runnable, with an argument array. Returns the exit code and the captured output; a non-zero exit is a normal, reported outcome. Asks the user to confirm first: a confirmation prompt where the client supports one; otherwise the first call returns a preview of exactly what would run and a confirmToken, and only a repeat call with that token proceeds (see MCP_CONFIRM_MODE).

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argsNoArguments passed as an argv array. There is no shell: nothing here is interpreted.
nameYesThe skill's name, exactly as skill_list reports it.
scriptYesThe exact script path skill_list reports for this skill.
confirmTokenNoONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 "confirmation-required" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it returns the exit code and captured output, treats non-zero exit as a normal reported outcome, and describes the two-step confirmation fallback with preview and confirmToken. It does not contradict the annotations. Some confirmation details are also present in the schema's confirmToken description, so not everything is net-new, but the return-value disclosure is valuable given no output schema.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core action and then explains confirmation and return behavior in a dense but purposeful way. It is a single long sentence with several clauses, but every clause earns its place. It is concise enough while covering the essential operational details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool that executes arbitrary scripts, the description covers the key operational contract: what runs, how arguments are passed, what is returned, and how confirmation works. It does not discuss environment, working directory, or security boundaries beyond the confirmation step, but given the annotations and schema richness, the essentials are present.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already thoroughly documents the confirmToken semantics: phase-1 response, never on first call, never invented, call again with same arguments, ignored when elicitation is supported. The tool description adds little beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Execute a script the skill DECLARES as runnable, with an argument array.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like skill_list, skill_file, and skill_load, which handle enumeration, file access, and loading rather than execution. The title reinforces this with 'Run a declared skill script.'

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly communicates when the tool applies: it runs scripts that the skill has declared runnable, and it explains the confirmation flow. It does not explicitly name alternatives like skill_list or skill_load, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer when to select this tool. It lacks explicit exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 1 tool updatev1.1.0
    • Changedskill_run2 fields changed
      • removedInput schema / properties / confirm
        Removed value: -{
        -  "description": "Must be true to proceed. Without this, the tool returns a preview.",
        -  "type": "boolean"
        -}
      • addedInput schema / properties / confirmToken
        Added value: +{
        +  "description": "ONLY for the two-step confirmation fallback (a client without MCP elicitation). The confirmToken from this same tool's phase-1 \"confirmation-required\" response, passed back ONLY after the user has seen that preview and explicitly approved it in chat — never on the first call, never invented, never reused. Call again with the same arguments. Ignored when the client supports elicitation.",
        +  "type": "string"
        +}
  2. 4 tool updatesv0.3.0
    • Changedskill_file1 field changed
      • changedInput schema / $schema
        Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • Changedskill_list1 field changed
      • changedInput schema / $schema
        Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • Changedskill_load1 field changed
      • changedInput schema / $schema
        Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • Changedskill_run1 field changed
      • changedInput schema / $schema
        Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. 4 tool updatesv0.1.0
    • First observedskill_file
    • First observedskill_list
    • First observedskill_load
    • First observedskill_run

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Scored across 4 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action on skills: listing all, loading instructions, reading bundled files, and executing declared scripts. No overlap or ambiguity exists between them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the exact pattern skill_<verb> (skill_list, skill_run, skill_file, skill_load), using consistent snake_case with a clear verb-noun structure.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools perfectly cover the server's scope—discovering, loading, reading from, and running skills. This is a well-scoped, compact set with no redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the entire skill consumption workflow: enumerate, load instructions, access files, and execute scripts. There are no missing operations for the stated purpose.

Maintenance

ActivityActive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Converts AI Skills (following Claude Skills format) into MCP server resources, enabling LLM applications to discover, access, and utilize self-contained skill directories through the Model Context Protocol. Provides tools to list available skills, retrieve skill details and content, and read supporting files with security protections.
    3
    29
    Apache 2.0
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Turns any folder of Markdown agent skills into a local MCP server, exposing them as tools, prompts, and resources for MCP-compatible clients.
    MIT