agentskills-mcp

List Skill Assets

list_skill_assets

List files in a skill's assets directory using its skill ID to help agents locate supporting assets before fetching or using them.

Instructions

List files in a skill's assets/ 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": "list_skill_assets"
  }
}

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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and one sentence does not meet it. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether listing is recursive, ordering, or what happens when the skill has no assets/ directory or an invalid skill_id. The verb 'list' weakly implies a safe read, but nothing is disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence with the resource scoping front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness is part of why behavioral details are absent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (one required parameter) and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations at all, the missing read-only/no-results/error behavior leaves the definition only minimally adequate.

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% for the single skill_id parameter, and the schema text ('Directory name of the skill') is at least as informative as the description. The description only adds that the parameter scopes to an assets/ subdirectory, so 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('files in a skill's assets/ directory'), which cleanly separates it from list_skills and from the reference/script siblings by the named subdirectory. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource name: an agent can infer this is the tool for assets rather than references or scripts. There is no explicit statement of when to choose it over list_skill_references or list_skill_scripts, and no preconditions (e.g., skill must exist, whether an empty assets/ folder is valid).

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

Deploy Server