get_skillLoad a bundled skill’s full SKILL.md workflow instructions by name (from list_skills). Follow the loaded instructions to run that workflow with the other tools. Read-only, free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | bundle name from list_skills, e.g. hermoso-generate |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only, free.' It adds useful behavioral context by explaining what the tool returns (full SKILL.md instructions) and how those instructions should be used afterward. Failure modes are not covered, which is acceptable for a read-only loader.
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 deliver the core purpose, the source of valid inputs, the next step, and the read-only/free nature. There is no filler and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 one-parameter, read-only tool without an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and how to use it in a broader workflow. Nothing critical for invoking it correctly is missing.
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 coverage is 100% for the single required parameter, including a type, requirement, and example value. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond restating that loading is by name, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Load') and a clear resource ('bundled skill's full SKILL.md workflow instructions by name'), and it references list_skills as the source of valid names. This differentiates it from siblings like list_skills, save_skill, and delete_skill without needing to open 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?
The description states the intended workflow: get the name from list_skills, load the SKILL.md, then follow those instructions with other tools. It does not explicitly spell out when not to use the tool, but the sequencing and source constraint are clear enough for an agent.
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.
The descriptions are exceptionally detailed and cross-reference one another (e.g. post_edit vs finish_video vs edit_video), which genuinely helps, but 168 tools still contain tight clusters—video creation/editing, scheduling, and post-publishing—where misselection is easy. Many tools also reference hidden companions not in the visible set, adding ambiguity.
The overwhelming majority follow a clear verb_noun snake_case convention (post_to_x, search_x, list_x, create_x, update_x). Minor deviations like store_get, billing_status, error_detail, and the hermoso_ prefix break the pattern slightly but do not obscure it.
At 168 tools this is far beyond the 50+ threshold, and regardless of how broad the platform's purpose is, the sheer number makes the set hard to navigate. The server mitigates with groups and find_tools/call_tool, but the count itself is extreme.
The set covers a full marketing lifecycle—research, planning, creation, publishing, scheduling, measurement, billing, and file management—with no major workflow gaps. Some referenced tools like list_shopify_products and manage_meta_post are not in the visible list, but find_tools and call_tool are explicitly designed to close that gap.