mcp-builder
MCP (Model Context Protocol) server build and evaluation guide, including local conventions for tool surfaces, config, and testing
What this skill does
# MCP Server Evaluation Guide
## Overview
This document provides guidance on creating comprehensive evaluations for MCP servers. Evaluations test whether LLMs can effectively use your MCP server to answer realistic, complex questions using only the tools provided.
---
## Quick Reference
### Evaluation Requirements
- Create 10 human-readable questions
- Questions must be READ-ONLY, INDEPENDENT, NON-DESTRUCTIVE
- Each question requires multiple tool calls (potentially dozens)
- Answers must be single, verifiable values
- Answers must be STABLE (won't change over time)
### Output Format
```xml
<evaluation>
<qa_pair>
<question>Your question here</question>
<answer>Single verifiable answer</answer>
</qa_pair>
</evaluation>
```
---
## Purpose of Evaluations
The measure of quality of an MCP server is NOT how well or comprehensively the server implements tools, but how well these implementations (input/output schemas, docstrings/descriptions, functionality) enable LLMs with no other context and access ONLY to the MCP servers to answer realistic and difficult questions.
## Evaluation Overview
Create 10 human-readable questions requiring ONLY READ-ONLY, INDEPENDENT, NON-DESTRUCTIVE, and IDEMPOTENT operations to answer. Each question should be:
- Realistic
- Clear and concise
- Unambiguous
- Complex, requiring potentially dozens of tool calls or steps
- Answerable with a single, verifiable value that you identify in advance
## Question Guidelines
### Core Requirements
1. **Questions MUST be independent**
- Each question should NOT depend on the answer to any other question
- Should not assume prior write operations from processing another question
2. **Questions MUST require ONLY NON-DESTRUCTIVE AND IDEMPOTENT tool use**
- Should not instruct or require modifying state to arrive at the correct answer
3. **Questions must be REALISTIC, CLEAR, CONCISE, and COMPLEX**
- Must require another LLM to use multiple (potentially dozens of) tools or steps to answer
### Complexity and Depth
4. **Questions must require deep exploration**
- Consider multi-hop questions requiring multiple sub-questions and sequential tool calls
- Each step should benefit from information found in previous questions
5. **Questions may require extensive paging**
- May need paging through multiple pages of results
- May require querying old data (1-2 years out-of-date) to find niche information
- The questions must be DIFFICULT
6. **Questions must require deep understanding**
- Rather than surface-level knowledge
- May pose complex ideas as True/False questions requiring evidence
- May use multiple-choice format where LLM must search different hypotheses
7. **Questions must not be solvable with straightforward keyword search**
- Do not include specific keywords from the target content
- Use synonyms, related concepts, or paraphrases
- Require multiple searches, analyzing multiple related items, extracting context, then deriving the answer
### Tool Testing
8. **Questions should stress-test tool return values**
- May elicit tools returning large JSON objects or lists, overwhelming the LLM
- Should require understanding multiple modalities of data:
- IDs and names
- Timestamps and datetimes (months, days, years, seconds)
- File IDs, names, extensions, and mimetypes
- URLs, GIDs, etc.
- Should probe the tool's ability to return all useful forms of data
9. **Questions should MOSTLY reflect real human use cases**
- The kinds of information retrieval tasks that HUMANS assisted by an LLM would care about
10. **Questions may require dozens of tool calls**
- This challenges LLMs with limited context
- Encourages MCP server tools to reduce information returned
11. **Include ambiguous questions**
- May be ambiguous OR require difficult decisions on which tools to call
- Force the LLM to potentially make mistakes or misinterpret
- Ensure that despite AMBIGUITY, there is STILL A SINGLE VERIFIABLE ANSWER
### Stability
12. **Questions must be designed so the answer DOES NOT CHANGE**
- Do not ask questions that rely on "current state" which is dynamic
- For example, do not count:
- Number of reactions to a post
- Number of replies to a thread
- Number of members in a channel
13. **DO NOT let the MCP server RESTRICT the kinds of questions you create**
- Create challenging and complex questions
- Some may not be solvable with the available MCP server tools
- Questions may require specific output formats (datetime vs. epoch time, JSON vs. MARKDOWN)
- Questions may require dozens of tool calls to complete
## Answer Guidelines
### Verification
1. **Answers must be VERIFIABLE via direct string comparison**
- If the answer can be re-written in many formats, clearly specify the output format in the QUESTION
- Examples: "Use YYYY/MM/DD.", "Respond True or False.", "Answer A, B, C, or D and nothing else."
- Answer should be a single VERIFIABLE value such as:
- User ID, user name, display name, first name, last name
- Channel ID, channel name
- Message ID, string
- URL, title
- Numerical quantity
- Timestamp, datetime
- Boolean (for True/False questions)
- Email address, phone number
- File ID, file name, file extension
- Multiple choice answer
- Answers must not require special formatting or complex, structured output
- Answer will be verified using DIRECT STRING COMPARISON
### Readability
2. **Answers should generally prefer HUMAN-READABLE formats**
- Examples: names, first name, last name, datetime, file name, message string, URL, yes/no, true/false, a/b/c/d
- Rather than opaque IDs (though IDs are acceptable)
- The VAST MAJORITY of answers should be human-readable
### Stability
3. **Answers must be STABLE/STATIONARY**
- Look at old content (e.g., conversations that have ended, projects that have launched, questions answered)
- Create QUESTIONS based on "closed" concepts that will always return the same answer
- Questions may ask to consider a fixed time window to insulate from non-stationary answers
- Rely on context UNLIKELY to change
- Example: if finding a paper name, be SPECIFIC enough so answer is not confused with papers published later
4. **Answers must be CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS**
- Questions must be designed so there is a single, clear answer
- Answer can be derived from using the MCP server tools
### Diversity
5. **Answers must be DIVERSE**
- Answer should be a single VERIFIABLE value in diverse modalities and formats
- User concept: user ID, user name, display name, first name, last name, email address, phone number
- Channel concept: channel ID, channel name, channel topic
- Message concept: message ID, message string, timestamp, month, day, year
6. **Answers must NOT be complex structures**
- Not a list of values
- Not a complex object
- Not a list of IDs or strings
- Not natural language text
- UNLESS the answer can be straightforwardly verified using DIRECT STRING COMPARISON
- And can be realistically reproduced
- It should be unlikely that an LLM would return the same list in any other order or format
## Evaluation Process
### Step 1: Documentation Inspection
Read the documentation of the target API to understand:
- Available endpoints and functionality
- If ambiguity exists, fetch additional information from the web
- Parallelize this step AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE
- Ensure each subagent is ONLY examining documentation from the file system or on the web
### Step 2: Tool Inspection
List the tools available in the MCP server:
- Inspect the MCP server directly
- Understand input/output schemas, docstrings, and descriptions
- WITHOUT calling the tools themselves at this stage
### Step 3: Developing Understanding
Repeat steps 1 & 2 until you have a good understanding:
- Iterate multiple tRelated in AI Agents
skill-development
IncludedComprehensive meta-skill for creating, managing, validating, auditing, and distributing Claude Code skills and slash commands (unified in v2.1.3+). Provides skill templates, creation workflows, validation patterns, audit checklists, naming conventions, YAML frontmatter guidance, progressive disclosure examples, and best practices lookup. Use when creating new skills, validating existing skills, auditing skill quality, understanding skill architecture, needing skill templates, learning about YAML frontmatter requirements, progressive disclosure patterns, tool restrictions (allowed-tools), skill composition, skill naming conventions, troubleshooting skill activation issues, creating custom slash commands, configuring command frontmatter, using command arguments ($ARGUMENTS, $1, $2), bash execution in commands, file references in commands, command namespacing, plugin commands, MCP slash commands, Skill tool configuration, or deciding between skills vs slash commands. Delegates to docs-management skill for official documentation.
reprompter
IncludedTransform messy prompts into well-structured, effective prompts — single or multi-agent. Use when: "reprompt", "reprompt this", "clean up this prompt", "structure my prompt", rough text needing XML tags and best practices, "reprompter teams", "repromptception", "run with quality", "smart run", "smart agents", multi-agent tasks, audits, parallel work, anything going to agent teams. Don't use when: simple Q&A, pure chat, immediate execution-only tasks. See "Don't Use When" section for details. Outputs: Structured XML/Markdown prompt, quality score (before/after), optional team brief + per-agent sub-prompts, agent team output files. Success criteria: Single mode quality score ≥ 7/10; Repromptception per-agent prompt quality score 8+/10; all required sections present, actionable and specific.
adaptive-compaction
IncludedAdaptive add-on policy and recovery layer that decides WHEN to compact, prune, snapshot, or fork -- replacing fixed-percent auto-compaction across Claude Code, Codex, and MCP-capable hosts. Trigger on auto-compact timing or damage: "when should I compact", "is it safe to compact now or start a fresh session", "auto-compact fires too early/mid-task", "switching to an unrelated task but the window still has space", "context rot", "answers get worse the longer the session runs", "the agent forgot the plan or my decisions after it summarized", "add a layer on top that manages context without changing the agent", raising autoCompactWindow to give the policy room, or installing/tuning a cross-tool compaction policy or PreCompact hook -- even when "compaction" is never said but the problem is context-window pressure or post-summarization memory loss. Do NOT use to summarize a conversation, build RAG, write a summarization prompt (decides WHEN not HOW), or answer max-context-length trivia.
agent-skill-creator
IncludedCreate cross-platform agent skills from workflow descriptions. Activates when users ask to create an agent, automate a repetitive workflow, create a custom skill, or need advanced agent creation. Triggers on phrases like create agent for, automate workflow, create skill for, every day I have to, daily I need to, turn process into agent, need to automate, create a cross-platform skill, validate this skill, export this skill, migrate this skill. Supports single skills, multi-agent suites, transcript processing, template-based creation, interactive configuration, cross-platform export, and spec validation.
llm-wiki
IncludedUse when building or maintaining a persistent personal knowledge base (second brain) in Obsidian where an LLM incrementally ingests sources, updates entity/concept pages, maintains cross-references, and keeps a synthesis current. Triggers include "second brain", "Obsidian wiki", "personal knowledge management", "ingest this paper/article/book", "build a research wiki", "compound knowledge", "Memex", or whenever the user wants knowledge to accumulate across sessions instead of being re-derived by RAG on every query.
skill-master
IncludedAgent Skills authoring, evaluation, and optimization. Create, edit, validate, benchmark, and improve skills following the agentskills.io specification. Use when designing SKILL.md files, structuring skill folders (references, scripts, assets), ingesting external documentation into skills, running trigger evals, benchmarking skill quality, optimizing descriptions, or performing blind A/B comparisons. Keywords: agentskills.io, SKILL.md, skill authoring, eval, benchmark, trigger optimization.