get_skillRead a skill's Markdown to inspect it (does not install anything). To install, call install_skill — it returns the file plus the exact path to write it to. Pass version to pin one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skill | Yes | owner/name, e.g. opsmith/jira-ticket-scorer | |
| version | No | Pin a version number; omit for latest. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the read-only nature ('Read', 'does not install anything') and implying return content (the skill's Markdown). It does not describe error cases or invalid-version handling, which keeps it a step below 5.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words: the core action is front-loaded, the safety distinction from install_skill is immediate, and the version note is included naturally. Each sentence contributes to correct tool selection or invocation.
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?
For a simple two-parameter read tool, all needed context is present: what it reads, what it does not do, when to use the sibling instead, and how the version parameter behaves. The absence of an output schema is adequately addressed by the description's indication that the result is the skill's Markdown.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both the skill identifier format and the optional version pinning. The description restates the version pinning but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline of 3.
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 and resource: reads a skill's Markdown for inspection. It clearly distinguishes itself from install_skill by explicitly noting that it does not install anything, so an agent can tell the tools apart without opening schemas.
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?
Explicitly names install_skill as the alternative and the condition for choosing it ('To install'), including what install_skill returns. This leaves no ambiguity about when to use get_skill versus its sibling. Version usage is also briefly addressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: brain_get/brain_list/brain_search/brain_write cover memory operations, while get_collection/get_skill/install_skill/search_skills/submit_skill handle skill discovery, retrieval, installation, and submission. No two tools overlap in function; even the search vs get pairs are distinct.
The brain_* prefix provides a consistent pattern for memory tools, but the skill tools use mixed conventions: get_collection, get_skill, install_skill, search_skills, submit_skill — no shared prefix or uniform verb_noun structure. This inconsistency is noticeable but each name is still readable.
With 9 tools covering two domains (memory and skills), the count is well-scoped. Each tool earns its place, and the number is within the ideal range for a focused server.
The brain tools cover list, get, search, and write, but lack an explicit delete operation. The skill tools cover search, get, install, submit, and collection listing, but no uninstall. These are minor gaps that agents can work around; the core workflows are complete.