Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cc-recommender

cc-recommender

by yuji0809
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

詳細取得

get_skill_details

Retrieves detailed information about a specified plugin, MCP server, skill, workflow, hook, command, or agent by name, helping you evaluate and choose the right Claude Code tool.

Instructions

特定のツール（プラグイン、MCPサーバー、スキル、ワークフロー、フック、コマンド、エージェント）の詳細情報を取得します

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": "get_skill_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesスキル/プラグイン/MCPの名前

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.2
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv0.9.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only restates the retrieval purpose. It does not state that the call is read-only, what happens for an unrecognized or non-unique name, whether the match is exact or fuzzy, or roughly what the returned detail contains. The verb 取得 implies a non-mutating lookup, but nothing is confirmed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical entity list earns its place by disambiguating scope beyond the tool's 'skill'-only name. It is somewhat list-heavy but not padded, and nothing is buried behind preamble.

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?

For a low-complexity single-parameter lookup with full schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient to select and call the tool. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should hint at what 'detail' includes and at failure behavior for unknown names — both are missing, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent deciding what to do with the result.

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 description coverage is 100% (the single 'name' parameter is documented as スキル/プラグイン/MCPの名前), so the schema already handles the parameter's meaning. The description adds that the name may refer to seven entity types, which slightly broadens the schema's narrower wording, but adds no format, matching, or uniqueness semantics. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (取得 = retrieve) and a clear resource (詳細情報 = detailed information) scoped to "特定のツール" (a specific tool), and enumerates the entity kinds covered (plugin, MCP server, skill, workflow, hook, command, agent). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools that search/list/stats, though it never explicitly names an alternative. The name says 'skill' while the description covers seven entity types, which the description helpfully clarifies.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the call to make once it has a specific name, versus search_skills or list_categories for discovery. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of what to do if the name is unknown or ambiguous. Sibling differentiation is left to inference from the word 'specific'.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools