listar_skillsList available game-creation skills from core and community, with optional category or keyword filters to find the right skill for your project.
Lista as skills disponíveis (próprias e da comunidade), opcionalmente filtrando por categoria ou busca.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| busca | No | Palavras-chave, ex.: 'pulo plataforma' | |
| categoria | No | Trecho da categoria, ex.: 'nucleo', 'genres', 'godot' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. The verb 'lista' implies a non-destructive read, but the description says nothing about return size, pagination, whether the community catalog is network-fetched (latency/availability), or authentication, all of which matter for a tool that merges own and remote skills.
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 well-formed sentence with the resource and its scope front-loaded and the optional filters trailing. No redundancy or filler.
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 read-only, zero-required-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (own and community skills) and how to narrow it. It is nearly sufficient, with only the behavioral details of result size and remote-source handling left unstated.
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% and both parameters carry their own examples ('pulo plataforma', 'nucleo/genres/godot'). The description restates that filtering is optional but adds no semantics 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Names a specific verb and resource ('Lista as skills disponíveis') and scopes it to own plus community skills, which helps an agent understand the breadth of the result set. It does not differentiate itself from near-neighbors such as recomendar_skills or recarregar_skills, so an agent must still infer the division of labor from sibling names.
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?
The only usage hint is that filtering by category or search is optional, which is parameter behavior rather than when-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over recomendar_skills or recarregar_skills, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.