Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agentskills-mcp

agentskills-mcp

by janacibron
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Get Skill Script

get_skill_script

Reads a specific script file from a skill's scripts/ directory using the skill ID and filename, so agents can fetch supporting scripts on demand.

Instructions

Read a specific script file from a skill's scripts/ directory.

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": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_skill_script"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesFilename within scripts/.
skill_idYesDirectory name of the skill.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Read" correctly signals a non-mutating operation and the scripts/-directory scoping tells the agent it cannot fetch references or assets through this tool, but nothing is said about behavior when the file or skill is missing, size/binary constraints, or what is returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the target (script file) and its location constraint are both stated immediately.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, this is nearly sufficient, though it never states that the return value is the file's content (or how that content is encoded/truncated).

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description adds only the framing that the name resolves inside a skill's scripts/ directory. That is a marginal clarification, not new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Read") and resource ("a specific script file") and scopes it to a skill's scripts/ directory, which distinguishes it from get_skill_reference and get_skill_asset by directory. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 word "specific" implies this is the targeted-fetch counterpart to a listing tool (list_skill_scripts), but no alternative is named and no when-not-to-use condition is given. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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