about_skillfolioWhat Skillfolio is: an AI-rebuilt resume plus a conversational portfolio website with an AI chatbot employers can question. Covers the product thesis, features, and what it deliberately does not do.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| answer | Yes | The answer about Skillfolio. | |
| source | Yes | The page this information comes from. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "answer": {
+ "description": "The answer about Skillfolio.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "source": {
+ "description": "The page this information comes from.",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "answer",
+ "source"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by mentioning it covers 'what it deliberately does not do,' which is useful but not rich. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('what Skillfolio is') and then elaborates with key aspects (thesis, features, non-features). Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise for a no-parameter tool.
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 tool takes no parameters and has rich annotations and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it tells the agent what content to expect (thesis, features, exclusions). It doesn't detail the output format, but that's not necessary with an output schema present. A complete description for this simple tool.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema to document. Since schema coverage is 100% (no params to cover), a baseline of 4 is justified. The description's mention of covering features and exclusions adds context that would help an agent understand what to expect, though it doesn't provide parameter-specific details.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to provide an overview of Skillfolio, covering the product thesis, features, and what it does not do. It distinguishes it from siblings like get_pricing and get_profile by focusing on the product as a whole rather than specific details, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.
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 implies the tool is for obtaining a general understanding of Skillfolio, which is a clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_pricing for pricing details or get_profile for a specific profile, so usage guidance is mostly implicit.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct: about covers product overview, get_pricing covers pricing, get_profile and show_example_profile both surface profile content but differ in purpose (lookup by handle vs. random example), how_to_get_started and start_profile_draft both relate to profile creation but one is instructions and the other is actual creation. Descriptions are detailed enough to disambiguate.
All tool names use snake_case and mostly follow an action_noun pattern (about, get, how_to_get_started, show, start). The pattern is a mix of verbs and phrases but consistent in style. Minor inconsistency: 'about_skillfolio' uses 'about' instead of a verb like 'get_info' or 'describe', but it's readable.
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for a product information and profile creation assistant. Each tool serves a distinct purpose and the count is within the ideal range (3-15). No bloat or sparsity.
The server covers key user journeys: learning about the product, pricing, getting started, seeing an example, looking up a published profile, and creating a draft. Minor gaps: no tool to update a profile, view interview answers directly (though it's included in get_profile/show_example_profile), or manage subscription, but these are not central to the assistant's purpose.