agentskills-mcp

List Skill Scripts

list_skill_scripts

List files in a skill's scripts/ directory by providing the skill ID, so agents can inspect available scripts before fetching or running them.

Instructions

List files in 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": "list_skill_scripts"
  }
}

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

B3.4/5.0

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 it discloses almost nothing beyond the bare listing action. It does not say whether the listing is recursive, how entries are ordered, or what happens when the skill has no scripts/ directory; a safe read operation is only weakly implied by the verb 'List'.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no redundant wording. Nothing in it is filler.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive listing tool with a documented input schema and an output schema covering return values, the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior such as empty or missing scripts/ directories, which a single clause could close.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already defines skill_id and the description adds no format hints (e.g., whether it is a path-like identifier or a bare directory name). Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the work.

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 ('List') and a precise resource ('files in a skill's scripts/ directory'), which separates it from siblings like list_skill_references and list_skill_assets by the subdirectory it targets. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 only implied by the 'scripts/' scope; there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus get_skill_script (fetch content of a single script) or the reference/asset listing tools. An agent can infer the split from the tool names, but the description provides no routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server