List skill drafts to access Miliastra Wonderland development knowledge. Retrieve available draft skills for review and planning.
【次要】列出技能草稿
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_skills"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention whether it returns full objects or summaries, whether it requires authentication, or any edge cases. It is adequate for a simple listing tool but lacks richer context.
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 extremely concise, consisting of a single short phrase. Every word carries meaning, and the 'secondary' tag, while perhaps stylistic, does not hinder comprehension. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.
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 low complexity (zero params, no output schema, simple listing), the description is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps: it does not explain what is returned, whether drafts are filtered by user or project, or if pagination exists. These are not critical for a basic tool, but for an agent relying solely on this description, some uncertainty remains.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is trivially 100% covered, so the description is not expected to provide parameter details. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and no additional semantic explanation is needed.
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 specific verb ('list') and resource ('skill drafts'), which is clear and distinct from siblings like list_nodes and list_community_tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself or explain what distinguishes it from similar list operations, so it loses the top point for sibling differentiation.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_skill or list_nodes. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and one-line description, which is insufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.