Skip to main content
Glama

VibeKit

by io.github.VibeKit-Bot

VibeKit Get Skill

vibekit_get_skill
Read-only

Fetch the full content of a specific skill — implementation patterns, code examples, and best practices for a domain. Fetch on-demand when you need guidance on a specific topic.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesSkill ID from vibekit_list_skills (e.g. 'nextjs', 'trpc', 'auth')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesWhether the call succeeded.
dataNoThe skill's id and full SKILL.md content.
errorNoError message when ok is false (e.g. missing/invalid VIBEKIT_API_KEY, or an API error).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "Result envelope: ok=true with data on success, ok=false with error on failure.",
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "The skill's id and full SKILL.md content."
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "description": "Error message when ok is false (e.g. missing/invalid VIBEKIT_API_KEY, or an API error).",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "Whether the call succeeded.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it fetches content. It does not elaborate on behavior such as caching, response size, or error handling. The description is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction; score is adequate given 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, read-only, open-world, with output schema), the description covers everything needed: what it does, what it contains, and when to use it. No significant gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'id' described as 'Skill ID from vibekit_list_skills (e.g. 'nextjs', 'trpc', 'auth')'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: fetching the full content of a specific skill. It specifies verb ('Fetch'), resource ('full content of a specific skill'), and content type ('implementation patterns, code examples, and best practices'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vibekit_list_skills, which presumably lists skills without full details.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool ('Fetch on-demand when you need guidance on a specific topic'), providing clear context. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternatives, but the sibling list (e.g., vibekit_list_skills) suggests a complementary relationship, making the usage intent very clear.

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

All VibeKit toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but vibekit_chat and vibekit_submit_task both handle AI-driven code changes, leading to potential confusion. Descriptions help differentiate, but overlap exists.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools use the 'vibekit_' prefix and lowercase with underscores. Most follow a verb_noun pattern, but a few (e.g., 'vibekit_account') are noun-only, causing minor inconsistency.

Tool Count3/5

36 tools is on the high side, covering many aspects of the platform. While mostly justified, the count feels slightly excessive and could be streamlined.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle of apps, databases, tasks, schedules, skills, QA, and environment variables. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.

Resources