Fetch a skill's frontmatter, body, size, and payload file list. Optionally filter by project to locate the skill within its pack skills.
Return one skill: frontmatter, body, size, and payload file list. Optional project looks through that map's pack skills.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | ||
| skill_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.12.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal what is returned and that project changes lookup scope, but it omits whether this is a safe read-only operation, what happens on missing skills, permission implications, or how project resolution behaves. This is minimal transparency for a retrieval tool.
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 short and front-loaded with the core operation and return contents. Both sentences contribute useful information, though the second sentence uses vague terminology that could be clearer without adding length.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value details do not need to be repeated in the description. However, the description is not fully self-sufficient because it leaves skill_id semantics, project behavior, and the meaning of 'map' under-specified, which matters for a tool with no annotations.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It mentions 'project' as optional and links it to pack skills, but it does not explain skill_id, acceptable formats, or the meaning of 'that map's pack skills' well enough for an agent to confidently construct a correct call.
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 and resource ('Return one skill') and enumerates the returned contents (frontmatter, body, size, payload file list), which helps distinguish it from list_skills and get_pack. The phrase 'that map's pack skills' introduces some ambiguity about what 'map' refers to, preventing a perfect score.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor named alternatives. The description implies this is the tool for retrieving a single skill's details, while optional project scoping hints at conditional behavior, but it does not clarify when a sibling like list_skills or get_pack would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.