List validated declarative skills to browse available options without loading full instructions, with filters for disabled skills and all versions.
List validated declarative skills without loading their full instructions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| all_versions | No | ||
| include_disabled | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| results | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that it doesn't load full instructions (a useful non-obvious behavior), but it doesn't mention whether it lists system skills, the effect of the parameters (e.g., including disabled versions), or if any authorization is needed. It's adequate but not rich.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the main action and key detail (validation and no full loading). No wasted words — every phrase adds value.
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's simplicity (two optional booleans) and the presence of an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it lacks explicit guidance on the two parameters and potential filtering semantics, making it functionally complete but not fully comprehensive for an agent deciding between list and get.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for the two boolean parameters. Although it does not explicitly explain all_versions or include_disabled, the parameters are booleans with self-explanatory names, and the default of false is visible. The description adds context that listing is lightweight, which helps the agent infer parameter purpose.
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 a clear verb ('List') and resource ('validated declarative skills'), and adds a behavioral detail — it does not load full instructions, distinguishing it from skill.get. This clearly differentiates the tool from its siblings (skill.get, skill.validate, etc.).
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?
The description implies usage — it lists skills without loading full instructions, so an agent knows it's a lightweight listing tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. skill.get, nor does it mention the all_versions and include_disabled parameters as optional filters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.