Supernova Cosmology MCP Server

load_sn_skill

Load a skill's full instructions by name to follow the required steps for supernova cosmology analysis.

Instructions

Load the full instructions of one of this server's skills and follow them.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "load_sn_skill"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Skill name from the list-skills tool.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`files`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`message`	Yes
`metadata`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Load' plus 'follow them' conveys that this is a retrieval step whose result drives subsequent behavior, which is useful context, but it says nothing about side effects, idempotency, permissions, or what happens with an unknown skill name.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler wording; the action and the expectation on the result are both stated in one line.

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 no explanation. However, with zero annotations and no explicit routing guidance, the definition leaves gaps around safety profile and when this should be invoked versus the listing sibling.

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% and the single parameter is documented as 'Skill name from the list-skills tool', so the schema already carries the meaning. The description adds nothing about valid name formats or how the name maps to a skill, leaving it at baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Load the full instructions of ... skills'), which distinguishes it from the sibling list_sn_skills (which enumerates rather than loads). It stops short of naming the sibling, so the distinction relies on the agent inferring 'load vs list'.

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?

'and follow them' implies the tool is used before acting on a skill, and the schema points to list_sn_skills as the discovery step, but the description never states when to call this instead of describe_sn_dataset or other siblings, nor any preconditions such as needing a valid skill name.

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