enable_skill
Enable one prompt-skill as a first-class capability binding.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| skill_name | Yes | ||
| description | No | ||
| instruction | Yes | ||
| execution_owner | No | ||
| artifact_affinities | No |
Algenta MCP Server
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states that the tool 'enables' a skill, but does not explain if it is a one-time action, whether it is reversible, what side effects occur, or any authorization needs. Critical behavioral traits like idempotency, state changes, or error handling are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified. It lacks essential detail and fails to earn its place given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations). Conciseness is not beneficial when it sacrifices clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the tool's functionality, input-output behavior, or how it fits into the broader system. A user or agent would be unable to use this tool correctly based solely on the description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% (none of the 6 parameters are described inline). The description provides no information about any parameter. Even the required 'skill_name' and 'instruction' are not mentioned. The description adds zero value beyond the raw schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Enable one prompt-skill as a first-class capability binding.' The verb 'enable' and object 'prompt-skill' provide a general sense, but 'prompt-skill' is a jargon term not explained, and the resulting 'first-class capability binding' is unclear. The purpose is vague and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_capability_binding' or 'test_capability_binding'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate. Sibling tools include 'disable_skill', 'create_capability_binding', and many others, but the description offers no comparative context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resources or actions, but there is some overlap (e.g., run_repository_fix vs run_repository_pipeline vs simulate_repository) that could cause confusion. Overall, descriptions help differentiate.
Naming Consistency3/5
Tool names are primarily snake_case with a verb_noun pattern, but there are inconsistencies (e.g., single-word verbs like 'simulate', 'tokenize', and mixed prefixes like 'preview_', 'product_'). The pattern is readable but not uniform.
Tool Count1/5
With 140 tools, the server is extremely over-scoped for typical MCP usage. This overwhelms agents and suggests poor separation of concerns, likely violating the principle of minimal tool surfaces.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers a wide range of functionalities including data onboarding, simulation, decisions, repository management, and admin operations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update_agent_run), but core workflows are well-supported.