Retrieve the current skill binding, defaulting to the resolved session, project, or global scope. Optionally inspect a specific layer to see the host contract and available skills.
Return current lean skill binding. Default is the resolved binding (session > project > global). Pass scope to inspect one layer. Includes the host contract (only these N skills).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / scopeAdded value: +{
+ "enum": [
+ "session",
+ "project",
+ "global"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains what the tool returns, including the host contract and the layered resolution. With no annotations, this provides useful behavioral context, though it does not mention side effects, errors, or authentication requirements.
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?
Three concise sentences, each adding meaningful information: what it returns, default behavior, and scope usage. No redundant or vague phrasing.
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 simple tool and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, defaults, and parameter behavior. It could be more explicit about the exact output format, but it is sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool.
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 single optional scope parameter is explained beyond the schema: it specifies which layer to inspect, and the default is the resolved binding. The enum values are self-explanatory in context.
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?
Clearly states the tool returns the current lean skill binding, with a specific verb ('Return') and object. It is distinct from sibling tools like bind_skills and list_skills by focusing on the binding state.
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?
Explains the default behavior (resolved binding with precedence) and how to inspect a specific layer via the scope parameter. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over sibling tools such as list_skills or read_skill.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.