get_skillRetrieve a skill's full SKILL.md workflow instructions by name, then follow those steps to run the workflow with other tools.
Load a bundled skill’s full SKILL.md workflow instructions by name (from list_skills). Follow the loaded instructions to run that workflow with the other tools. Read-only, free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | bundle name from list_skills, e.g. hermoso-generate |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.161Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
- "additionalProperties": false,
- "properties": {
- "name": {
- "description": "the loaded skill bundle name",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only, free.' It adds useful behavioral context by explaining what the tool returns (full SKILL.md instructions) and how those instructions should be used afterward. Failure modes are not covered, which is acceptable for a read-only loader.
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?
Two sentences deliver the core purpose, the source of valid inputs, the next step, and the read-only/free nature. There is no filler and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 one-parameter, read-only tool without an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and how to use it in a broader workflow. Nothing critical for invoking it correctly is missing.
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 coverage is 100% for the single required parameter, including a type, requirement, and example value. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating that loading is by name, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb ('Load') and a clear resource ('bundled skill's full SKILL.md workflow instructions by name'), and it references list_skills as the source of valid names. This differentiates it from siblings like list_skills, save_skill, and delete_skill without needing to open schemas.
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 states the intended workflow: get the name from list_skills, load the SKILL.md, then follow those instructions with other tools. It does not explicitly spell out when not to use the tool, but the sequencing and source constraint are clear enough for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.