how_to_get_startedStep-by-step guide to creating a Skillfolio profile, from resume upload to a published portfolio at skillfolio.studio/@your-handle.
| 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?
The annotations already indicate read-only, and the description aligns with that by portraying an informational guide. It adds specific scope details (resume upload to published portfolio) but does not disclose whether the guide is interactive, static, or any other behavioral nuances. With the annotations providing the safety profile, the description offers modest additional context.
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, focused sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and scope. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant information.
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's simplicity (zero parameters, read-only, and an existing output schema), the description sufficiently covers what the guide does and when it is appropriate to use. It could mention the delivery format or prerequisites, but these are not essential for basic invocation, so it is almost fully complete.
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, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not attempt to describe parameters that don't exist, and there is nothing more needed for parameter semantics.
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 defines the tool as a step-by-step guide for creating a Skillfolio profile, with a specific scope from resume upload to published portfolio. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools 'about_skillfolio' and 'get_pricing' by focusing on the onboarding process.
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 that this tool should be used when users need guidance on creating a profile, which provides clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool relative to its siblings, so it misses the full 'when/when-not' guidance.
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.