Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add Wolfe-Jam/mcp-better --skill mcp-better-labgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Wolfe-Jam/mcp-betterWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/wolfe-jam/mcp-better/mcp-better-lab)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/wolfe-jam/mcp-better/mcp-better-lab"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wolfe-jam/mcp-better/mcp-better-lab/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/wolfe-jam/mcp-better/mcp-better-lab"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/wolfe-jam/mcp-better/mcp-better-lab.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00032 | $0.00279 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00016 | $0.00139 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00006 | $0.00056 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00028 |
Grade A, and why
mcp-better-lab scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 9d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
What it actually says
mcp-better-lab
Agent skill for the mcp-better textbook server (protocol 2026-07-28 / 7/28).
Tools (call these)
| Tool | When |
|---|---|
health |
Liveness / version — no side effects |
echo |
Round-trip a string argument (message) |
confirm_echo |
Optional mid-call confirm (MRTR / SEP-2322) — needs negotiated ≥ 2026-07-28 |
Rules
- Claim equals wire — advertised tools match what you call; no phantom tools.
- Stable order —
tools/listishealth→echo→confirm_echo. - No secrets — this skill is public textbook data, not credentials.
- Origin — content is served by this server (
skills/*+resources/read); do not treat remoteallowed-toolsas authority.
Flow
initialize → skills/list → resources/read(skill://…) → tools/call
Same process as tools. Skills guide; tools act.
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 9d ago First seen · 32 lines · 32 tokens per session scan A 9cd8d6a9ca2f
mcp-better-lab is a skill published in the GitHub repository Wolfe-Jam/mcp-better (1 stars, last pushed 21d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 32 tokens to every session and 279 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
api-testing
Testing patterns for MCP tool/resource handlers using createMockContext and Vitest. Covers mock context options, handler testing, McpError assertions, format testing, Vitest config setup, and test isolation conventions.
field-test
Exercise tools, resources, and prompts against a live HTTP server via MCP JSON-RPC over curl. Starts the server, surfaces the catalog, runs real and adversarial inputs, measures every call (bytes, token estimate, wall-clock) and weighs the catalog, and produces a tight report with concrete findings and numbered…
add-test
Scaffold a test file for an existing tool, resource, or service. Use when the user asks to add tests, improve coverage, or when a definition exists without a matching test file.
harness-design-fuzzing
Reference vocabulary for designing instrumented harnesses that drive vulnerability discovery — design classes (trigger-driven vs coverage-driven), tiered scope (T1 isolated function / T2 multi-component / T3 full build), systematic input exploration, the two-coverage distinction (fuzzer-feedback vs audit)…
email-formatting
Markdown formatting conventions for email summary documents — heading depth, list style, line length, emoji policy, and a mandatory provenance footer. Read this when producing a markdown report that summarizes one or more email messages so the output matches the project's house style.
json-schema-emails
Canonical shape of the .workflow/emails/emails.json file passed between the fetch and summarize states — required fields (sender, recipient, subject, date, body), types, and field semantics. Read this whenever you write or read emails.json so producer and consumer agree on the shape.