List available skills registered with opencode to discover which skills can be used for a given project directory or the default project.
List available skills registered with opencode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| directory | No | Project directory to target. Optional; defaults to the server default project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about scope, whether skills are global vs. project-specific, or the return shape. Minimal disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no wasted words. Appropriately sized, though it errs toward under-specification rather than concise richness.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description should carry more. It omits what a 'skill' is and what the listing returns, though the tool is simple enough (one optional param) that this is a moderate gap rather than a crippling one.
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?
Only one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents 'directory' and its default behavior. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already states, which is the baseline-3 case.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: 'List available skills registered with opencode.' The resource 'skills' is distinct from the many sibling list tools (agent_list, command_list, provider_list), so an agent can tell it apart by resource name. However it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives among the dozens of sibling list tools. The agent must infer that this is the tool to call when it needs to discover available skills.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.