Agent Skills MCP

github_skills_search_skills

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search GitHub repositories for agent skills by name or path using text queries to find relevant tools and capabilities.

Instructions

Search skill directories by matching the query against skill names and paths.

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": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "github_skills_search_skills"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Apr 19, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotation already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. Description adds that search matches against names and paths, which is useful but not extensive. No mention of pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No redundant or unnecessary information. Every word carries meaning.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema and annotations, the description is moderately complete. However, it lacks mention that the search covers 'configured GitHub repositories' (which appears in the annotation title but not in the description itself). Could also clarify that results are from all registered repositories.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Context indicates 0% schema description coverage, but the actual schema has descriptions for each parameter inside the nested object. Nevertheless, the description does not explain any parameter details, such as what 'query' represents or the effect of 'limit' and 'response_format'. This fails to compensate for the reported low coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool searches skill directories by matching a query against names and paths. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_skill (single skill) and install_skill (installation). However, it could be more specific about the search scope (e.g., across repositories).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_skill or list_repositories. Does not mention that this is for searching across all configured repos, nor provides examples. The description only states what it does, not when to prefer it.

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

Deploy Server