Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SkullRender-Agents MCP Server

SkullRender-Agents MCP Server

by crozzbite
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

skflow_brief_schema

Retrieve the JSON Schema for validating Presentador⇄Orquestador briefs. Use it to ensure prompts sent to engineers conform to required structure.

Instructions

Return the JSON Schema used to validate Presentador⇄Orquestador briefs (for prompting engineers).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "skflow_brief_schema"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a JSON Schema, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly disclose safety, side effects, or response structure beyond the schema. For a simple retrieval tool this is adequate, but minimal.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Return the JSON Schema') and adds the audience context. Every word earns its place, with zero redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is complete enough. It specifies the output type (JSON Schema) and its purpose, and the sibling list helps locate it among related tools. Minor gaps like not mentioning that the schema is standard JSON Schema or how it might be used are not significant for a metadata tool.

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, so with schema coverage at 100%, no parameter explanation is needed. The description correctly avoids mentioning parameters, and the baseline of 4 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns the JSON Schema used for validating Presentador⇄Orquestador briefs. It names the specific resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like skflow_brief_validate, which likely performs validation rather than returning 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 Guidelines3/5

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

The intended audience ('for prompting engineers') implies when to use this tool, but there is no explicit comparison with alternatives like skflow_brief_validate. The usage context is clear but not elaborated with exclusions or 'when not to use' guidance.

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