agentskills-mcp

Get Skill Body

get_skill_body

Fetch a skill’s full SKILL.md content, including frontmatter and markdown instructions, so an agent can load and follow its guidance.

Instructions

Return the full SKILL.md content for a skill (frontmatter + markdown body). Call this when you're ready to follow the skill's instructions. Cached by file mtime — repeated calls are cheap.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "skill_id": "<skill_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_skill_body"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`skill_id`	Yes	Directory name of the skill.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.1Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden and does add real behavioral context: caching keyed on file mtime and the resulting cheapness of repeat calls, plus what the payload contains. It omits failure behavior for an invalid skill_id and does not state that the operation is read-only.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: what is returned, when to call it, and the caching trait. No redundancy or filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description still characterizes the payload shape. For a one-parameter read getter this is nearly complete; only error/not-found behavior is unaddressed.

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?

The single skill_id parameter has full schema coverage with its own description ('Directory name of the skill'), so the schema does the work. The tool description adds nothing about identifier format or resolution beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: returns the full SKILL.md content, naming the parts (frontmatter + markdown body). The word 'full' implicitly separates it from get_skill_metadata and the reference/script/asset getters, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition — 'Call this when you're ready to follow the skill's instructions' — which tells the agent this is the terminal step after discovery. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as get_skill_metadata or state what to do if the skill doesn't exist.

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

Deploy Server