Content
82%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a high-quality, expert-level instruction skill: lean prose with no filler, exact identifiers/URLs/flags throughout, explicit verification and evaluation guidance, and sensible delegation of version-specific detail to external docs. Its main gaps are the complete absence of executable code examples for a code-authoring task and implicit (heading-based rather than enumerated) workflow sequencing.
Suggestions
Add one or two short executable snippets for the highest-frequency tasks (e.g., a minimal `@fastmcp.tool` definition with `Literal`/`Field` annotations, and an in-process `Client(server)` verification call) to reach copy-paste-ready actionability.
Make the workflow sequence explicit — e.g., number the phases (1. pin the version-matched docs, 2. author the interface, 3. verify via Client, 4. evaluate agent workflows) so the order and its checkpoints are unambiguous.
Consider moving the dense Skills Provider / Experimental Skills Extension passage ("`SkillsDirectoryProvider` exposes skill files as resources; the experimental extension adds `skills/list` and `skills/get`...") into a short reference note or trimming it, since it is a niche sub-feature of the authoring workflow.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense, lean prose with no padding: every sentence carries non-obvious, project-specific instruction (e.g., "select `/v3/` pages for FastMCP 3", "With `mask_error_details=True`, ordinary exceptions such as `ValueError` lose their messages") and it assumes Claude already knows what MCP and Python are, matching anchor 5's 'every token earns its place'. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, executable guidance pervades the body — "Fetch [the documentation index](https://gofastmcp.com/llms.txt)", "use `Literal` or enums for finite choices", "Use `ToolError`, `ResourceError`, or `PromptError` from `fastmcp.exceptions`", "Verify the server through FastMCP's `Client`" — but it never shows an actual code snippet (it only says "A short fetch/filter/return example can prevent repeated empty outputs"), leaving minor gaps that keep it at anchor 4 rather than the copy-paste-ready anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The three sections imply a coherent sequence (find the current API → author the server → evaluate agent workflows) with strong validation checkpoints ("Verify the server through FastMCP's `Client`... Check a representative operation, its client-visible schema and result, and a meaningful failure"; "Inspect traces for discovery misses... before changing tool descriptions"), but the sequence is conveyed through section headings rather than explicit ordered steps, fitting anchor 4's 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present'. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body has clean section structure and appropriately delegates version-specific detail to external documentation ("Read individual pages through their `.md` URLs instead of loading `llms-full.txt`") rather than inlining it; no bundle files exist to verify, and the ~90-line body with a few dense passages that could live in reference files keeps it at anchor 4 rather than anchor 5's clear one-level-deep reference structure. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |