Get a skill by ID or trigger to run it. Returns the skill prompt and metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | Yes | SimpleFunctions API key. Get one at https://simplefunctions.dev/dashboard/keys | |
| skillId | Yes | Skill ID (UUID) to retrieve |
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 no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It fails to explain what 'trigger to run' actually does, whether it executes side effects, requires special permissions, or how the returned prompt/metadata are structured. The potential runtime nature of the tool is not clarified.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler words. However, the ambiguous 'or trigger to run it' makes the sentence less crisp than it could be, so it loses a point for structural clarity.
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?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, and the presence of closely named siblings, this terse description is under-specified. It does not clarify execution semantics, return format, error cases, or use cases, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage: apiKey and skillId are both described with types and purpose. The description adds only 'by ID' and 'trigger' context, which does not significantly expand beyond the schema's 'Skill ID (UUID) to retrieve'.
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 names a specific resource ('skill') and mentions returning prompt and metadata, but 'Get a skill by ID or trigger to run it' combines two possible actions ('get' vs 'trigger') without clarifying which is primary. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_public_skill or get_skills.
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 guidance is given about when to use run_skill versus alternatives such as get_public_skill, get_skills, or create_skill. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple market query tools (scan_markets, screen_markets, get_market_detail, get_market_diff, get_market_history, inspect_ticker) and legislative tools (legislation, get_legislation, list_legislation, query_gov). Aliases like get_heartbeat_config/get_heartbeat_status and explore_public/explore_theses add further confusion. An agent would struggle to select the correct tool without deeply reading each description.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, update_), but there are notable deviations: 'legislation' lacks the 'get_' prefix, 'stt' and 'tts' are acronyms, 'monitor_the_situation' is a full phrase, and 'x_account/x_news/x_volume' use a non-standard prefix. The overall style is readable, but the mixed conventions reduce predictability.
108 tools is extreme for any server, even one covering prediction markets, trading, portfolio management, forum, skills, and speech. The massive surface area overwhelms agents and makes the server feel more like a platform than a coherent toolkit. This many tools inevitably leads to redundancy and maintenance burden.
The server covers an impressively broad domain: market data, thesis management, intents, strategies, positions, portfolio, forum, skills, legislative and economic queries, and audio/visual processing. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no delete for skills/theses, no update for some portfolio items) but core workflows are well-supported. Overall lifecycle coverage for most entities is strong.
