CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
SkillPublic

bgpt-mcp

Search scientific papers via the BGPT MCP server and retrieve structured experimental data — methods, results, conclusions, quality scores, and 25+ metadata fields per paper.

Quality

68%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/bgpt-mcp/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

56%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is highly actionable with concrete configs, commands, examples, and thoughtful gotchas/safety guidance, and the workflow is clear for a simple single-task skill. Its main problems are pervasive duplication of parameters, endpoints, and field lists across sections, and reference-style content inlined in an overlong single file.

Suggestions

Consolidate the parameter/endpoint listings (frontmatter, Input Formats, Tool call, CLI flags, MCP Reference) into a single canonical reference section and remove the repeats.

Trim or remove 'Why This Exists' and 'Algorithm/Methodology' — the agent operating the skill does not need the server's ingestion pipeline or marketing rationale.

Move the full Example Output, Output Structure field list, Pricing, and Citations into a references/ file (e.g. references/output-format.md) linked one level deep from SKILL.md.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is noticeably padded: the same three parameters are listed four times (frontmatter inputs, Input Formats table, Tool call block, CLI flags table), endpoints appear in four places, '25+ fields' is repeated ~6 times, and sections like 'Why This Exists' and 'Algorithm/Methodology' (server internals) add little operational value.

2 / 5

Actionability

Provides copy-paste-ready MCP client config JSON, an npx alternative, a concrete tool-call spec with params, CLI commands with a flag table, and a demo with expected output — minor gaps only, e.g. 'python clawbio.py run' presumes a runner whose availability is never established.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 5-step workflow with freedom-level guidance, explicit failure handling ('If the MCP call fails or returns no results, say so. Never invent titles, DOIs, or findings'), rate-limit handling, and a separate demo verification path — though no validation checkpoint is embedded in the workflow itself.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

A single ~270-line file with clear section headers but no bundle files; bulk reference-style content (full Example Output, Output Structure field list, Pricing, Citations) is inlined rather than split into one-level-deep reference files.

3 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

66%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is specific and distinctive, clearly naming the tool, the actions, and the rich structured outputs. Its main weakness is the absence of any 'when to use' trigger guidance, and its keyword coverage misses several natural synonyms users would say.

Suggestions

Append an explicit trigger clause, e.g. 'Use when the user asks to search papers, run a literature search, or find experimental data (methods, results, quality scores) from published studies.'

Include natural synonyms users actually say — 'literature search', 'find studies', 'research papers' — alongside 'scientific papers' and 'experimental data'.

Optionally differentiate from adjacent skills in the description itself, e.g. '...deeper than PubMed abstract-only searchers', to reduce overlap risk.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Concrete actions are named ('Search scientific papers via the BGPT MCP server', 'retrieve structured experimental data') with a detailed enumeration of returned fields (methods, results, conclusions, quality scores, 25+ metadata fields), but coverage is limited to two actions rather than a comprehensive set.

4 / 5

Completeness

The 'what' is clearly stated (search papers, retrieve structured experimental data), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like 'scientific papers' and 'experimental data' are present, but common user variants such as 'literature search', 'find studies', and 'research papers' are missing from the description itself.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'via the BGPT MCP server' and 'structured experimental data... 25+ metadata fields' carve a distinct niche versus abstract-only literature skills, though the broad phrase 'search scientific papers' still overlaps with generic paper-search skills.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_field

'metadata' should map string keys to string values

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository

ClawBio/ClawBio

Path

skills/bgpt-mcp/SKILL.md

Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.