See all installed AI skills in one view, including npm-installed and local customizations. Each entry shows name, version, source, and customization status.
List all installed skills — both npm-installed (/.claude/skills/) and your local customizations (/.ecoclaw/skills/). Shows name, version, source, and whether you've customized it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It states the action is a read-only list, shows the locations scanned, and enumerates the displayed fields (name, version, source, customization status). This provides a transparent picture of the operation without hiding side effects, which are minimal for a list command.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all installed skills') and then adds the two source locations and the output fields in a natural flow. Every clause adds information with no redundancy.
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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what is listed, where skills are found, and what information is shown. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the result correctly.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description correctly focuses on behavior and output rather than adding unnecessary parameter context.
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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: 'all installed skills'. It further distinguishes itself from siblings like discover_skills by specifying local installations (~/.claude/skills/ and ~/.ecoclaw/skills/) and what fields are shown, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.
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 description makes it clear this is for viewing already-installed skills, which is a clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the scope ('installed' vs. discovered/updated) is implied well enough for an agent to pick this over siblings like discover_skills or update_skills.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.