Skip to main content
Glama
chrischall

skill-mcp

by chrischall
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

skill_run

Destructive

Execute a skill-declared script with arguments, returning exit code and output; prompts the user to confirm before running.

Instructions

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 (unless MCP_CONFIRM_ELICITATION=off); 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).

Input 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.0
    • 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. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, openWorld=true, non-idempotent, but the description adds substantial value beyond them: non-zero exit is a normal reported outcome (not an error), what is returned (exit code plus captured output), and the full two-phase confirmation protocol including environment flags (MCP_CONFIRM_ELICITATION, MCP_CONFIRM_MODE) and the confirmToken handshake. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot convey.

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 core action and return semantics are front-loaded in the first sentence, with confirmation behavior second. It is dense with parenthetical config detail but nearly every clause carries operational weight, so little is wasted.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the return payload (exit code and captured output), the non-zero-exit interpretation, and the entire confirmation lifecycle. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and safely without further documentation.

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 documents all four parameters, including the confirmToken fallback semantics and the no-shell argv behavior. The description only restates the argument-array concept, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Execute a script the skill DECLARES as runnable, with an argument array') and constrains scope to scripts the skill has marked runnable, which distinguishes it from skill_list, skill_load, and skill_file. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Provides a clear precondition (the script must be declared runnable by the skill) and describes the required confirmation flow in detail. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools or say when to prefer skill_file/skill_load instead, but the execution context is unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools