Execute any installed skill by supplying its name, parameters, and optional command, triggering the defined script or workflow right from your environment.
Execute a skill command with parameters
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | No | Command to execute (use 'default' for single-command skills) | default |
| parameters | No | Parameters to pass to the skill command | |
| skill_name | Yes | Name of the skill to run |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Execute a skill command with parameters'. It does not indicate side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what happens on execution. For a tool that likely has side effects (running a command), this is seriously under-disclosed.
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?
The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks the structure to front-load key information; it simply states the obvious.
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?
Given the tool has three parameters, one nested object, and no annotations or output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what a 'skill command' is, how parameters are used, or what to expect after execution. An agent would struggle to call it correctly without additional context.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the word 'parameters', which is trivial. It does not clarify how parameters relate to the command or any syntax, so it stays at the baseline of 3.
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 states the verb 'Execute' and the resource 'skill command with parameters', which clearly conveys the action. It is not a tautology and gives a specific purpose, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_skills or get_skill, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings (list_skills, get_skill, refresh_skills). No context is provided about typical scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage on its own. This is a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.