/improving-mcp-tools
Run an improve-my-MCP campaign: an autoresearch-style loop that measures the MCP agent experience with the eval harness, picks the highest-impact tool problem from production data, makes one bounded fix, and keeps it only if before/after scores improve. Use when asked to
$ npx -y skills add posthog/posthog --skill improving-mcp-tools --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
- Fires itselfAuto-invocation. Claude auto-loads it when your prompt matches the work.Auto-invocation is when the right skill fires by itself at the right moment, driven by a FLOW.md router and a hook, instead of you invoking it by name. It is the difference between a skill being installed and a skill actually getting used.Read the full definition →
- You can call itInvoke it directly when you want it.
- Slash command
/improving-mcp-tools
Context preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Run an improve-my-MCP campaign: an autoresearch-style loop that measures the MCP agent experience with the eval harness, picks the highest-impact tool problem from production data, makes one bounded fix, and keeps it only if before/after scores improve. Use when asked to
SKILL.md
improving-mcp-tools.SKILL.mdname: improving-mcp-tools
description: >
Run an improve-my-MCP campaign: an autoresearch-style loop that measures the
MCP agent experience with the eval harness, picks the highest-impact tool
problem from production data, makes one bounded fix, and keeps it only if
before/after scores improve. Use when asked to "improve my MCP", run an MCP
improvement campaign, fix tool discoverability or descriptions based on
evidence, or prepare an eval-backed PR for a tool change. Every shipped
change must carry eval evidence; guardrails below are hard rules.
Improving MCP tools
An MCP server gets better only in ways you can measure. This skill is the campaign procedure: score the current agent experience, fix the biggest problem, re-score, and only ship changes the numbers justify. It is the operating manual for the "improve my MCP" loop — one iteration per pass, journaled so a later iteration (or a different agent) can resume without repeating work.
The objective function
`services/mcp/evals/` is the harness. `benchmark/tasks.yaml` is a fixed set of agent tasks with `expected_tools` and `success_criteria`; scores are only comparable across runs of the same benchmark `version`.
- **Probe mode** (deterministic, no LLM):
`LIVE_MCP_URL=... LIVE_MCP_TOKEN=... pnpm exec tsx evals/runner/probe.ts --out score.json` from `services/mcp/`. Reports tool-presence misses (discoverability), probe failures, and latency p50/p95. Non-zero exit = regression.
- **Agent mode** (LLM replay + judge): scores task success and tool-selection
accuracy. Use it for description/discoverability changes — probes cannot detect that an agent picks the wrong tool.
Run the harness against a **seeded local or devbox stack**, never against a customer project. Local recipe: `NODE_ENV=development PORT=9876 POSTHOG_API_BASE_URL=http://localhost:8000 pnpm dev:hono`, personal API key as `LIVE_MCP_TOKEN`.
One iteration
1. **Measure.** Run the harness for a baseline. Pull production evidence with the MCP analytics tools (`query-mcp-tool-stats`, `query-mcp-tool-failures`, `query-mcp-tool-descriptions`, `query-mcp-tool-sample-intents`) and the lenses in the signals scout cookbook (`products/signals/skills/signals-scout-mcp-tool-calls/references/queries.md`): failure leaderboard, retry/struggle, latency, intents that matched no tool. 2. **Pick one issue.** Rank by reach × severity. Skip anything the journal shows with two failed attempts. One issue per iteration — a PR that fixes three things can't be attributed to any of them when scores move. 3. **Fix, bounded.** Only files inside the allowlist (below). Typical fixes: sharpen a tool description so the right intent finds it, tighten an input schema that agents keep getting wrong, fix an annotation, update a skill. 4. **Validate.** Re-run the affected benchmark slice plus a no-regression sample. Keep the change only if the target metric improves and nothing else degrades. A discarded change is a normal outcome — journal it and move on. 5. **Ship.** One PR per iteration with before/after scores in the body (format in [references/campaign-journal.md](references/campaign-journal.md)). Keep it stampable: ≤400 changed lines, only files inside the allowlist below, apply the `stamphog` label. Autonomy level comes from the campaign config — default is **draft PR for human review**; only arm auto-merge when the operator has explicitly enabled the self-driving experiment (see guardrails). 6. **Journal.** Append the iteration record before ending the pass.
Hard guardrails
These are not suggestions; violating any of them ends the campaign pass.
- **Allowlist** — a campaign PR may only touch: `products/*/mcp/tools.yaml`,
`products/*/skills/**`, `services/mcp/evals/**`, the codegen outputs of `pnpm generate-tools` / `scaffold-yaml` (`services/mcp/src/tools/generated/**` and `services/mcp/schema/generated-tool-definitions.json`), and docs. Anything else (handler code, package manifests, workflows, migrations, auth paths) → stop and hand the finding to a human as a draft PR or report instead.
- **Read-only against data.** The harness and all production queries are
read-only. Never create, mutate, or delete customer-visible objects while measuring.
- **Evidence or it didn't happen.** No PR without a baseline score, an after
score, and the exact harness commands used.
- **Benchmark integrity.** Never edit `benchmark/tasks.yaml` in the same PR as
a fix it validates — changing the exam and the answer together proves nothing. Benchmark changes are their own PR and bump `version`.
- **Budgets.** Respect the operator's iteration/token/PR caps (default: stop
after 3 open unmerged campaign PRs). Two failed attempts on an issue parks it permanently.
- **Kill switch.** If the campaign config, its feature flag, or the operator
says stop — stop mid-iteration, journal state, end cleanly.
Failure modes to expect
- A description change that helps one intent can steal traffic from the right
tool for another — that's why the no-regression sample is mandatory. The intent-cluster snapshot's `tool_overlaps` (see [`exploring-mcp-intent-clusters`](../exploring-mcp-intent-clusters/SKILL.md)) lists exactly which pairs compete for which intents: snapshot it before a description rewrite and recompute after, and treat a capture shift in an overlapping pair as the regression signal.
- Probe latency varies with stack warmth; compare medians across ≥3 runs
before attributing a latency change to your fix.
- Tool-presence misses can be feature-flag gating, not catalog absence —
check `getToolsForFeatures` gating before "fixing" discoverability.
Read more
name: improving-mcp-tools description: > Run an improve-my-MCP campaign: an autoresearch-style loop that measures the MCP agent experience with the eval harness, picks the highest-impact tool problem from production data, makes one bounded fix, and keeps it only if before/after scores improve. Use when asked to "improve my MCP", run an MCP improvement campaign, fix tool discoverability or descriptions based on evidence, or prepare an eval-backed PR for a tool change. Every shipped change must carry eval evidence; guardrails below are hard rules.
Improving MCP tools
An MCP server gets better only in ways you can measure. This skill is the campaign procedure: score the current agent experience, fix the biggest problem, re-score, and only ship changes the numbers justify. It is the operating manual for the "improve my MCP" loop — one iteration per pass, journaled so a later iteration (or a different agent) can resume without repeating work.
The objective function
`services/mcp/evals/` is the harness. `benchmark/tasks.yaml` is a fixed set of agent tasks with `expected_tools` and `success_criteria`; scores are only comparable across runs of the same benchmark `version`.
- **Probe mode** (deterministic, no LLM):
`LIVE_MCP_URL=... LIVE_MCP_TOKEN=... pnpm exec tsx evals/runner/probe.ts --out score.json` from `services/mcp/`. Reports tool-presence misses (discoverability), probe failures, and latency p50/p95. Non-zero exit = regression.
- **Agent mode** (LLM replay + judge): scores task success and tool-selection
accuracy. Use it for description/discoverability changes — probes cannot detect that an agent picks the wrong tool.
Run the harness against a **seeded local or devbox stack**, never against a customer project. Local recipe: `NODE_ENV=development PORT=9876 POSTHOG_API_BASE_URL=http://localhost:8000 pnpm dev:hono`, personal API key as `LIVE_MCP_TOKEN`.
One iteration
1. **Measure.** Run the harness for a baseline. Pull production evidence with the MCP analytics tools (`query-mcp-tool-stats`, `query-mcp-tool-failures`, `query-mcp-tool-descriptions`, `query-mcp-tool-sample-intents`) and the lenses in the signals scout cookbook (`products/signals/skills/signals-scout-mcp-tool-calls/references/queries.md`): failure leaderboard, retry/struggle, latency, intents that matched no tool. 2. **Pick one issue.** Rank by reach × severity. Skip anything the journal shows with two failed attempts. One issue per iteration — a PR that fixes three things can't be attributed to any of them when scores move. 3. **Fix, bounded.** Only files inside the allowlist (below). Typical fixes: sharpen a tool description so the right intent finds it, tighten an input schema that agents keep getting wrong, fix an annotation, update a skill. 4. **Validate.** Re-run the affected benchmark slice plus a no-regression sample. Keep the change only if the target metric improves and nothing else degrades. A discarded change is a normal outcome — journal it and move on. 5. **Ship.** One PR per iteration with before/after scores in the body (format in [references/campaign-journal.md](references/campaign-journal.md)). Keep it stampable: ≤400 changed lines, only files inside the allowlist below, apply the `stamphog` label. Autonomy level comes from the campaign config — default is **draft PR for human review**; only arm auto-merge when the operator has explicitly enabled the self-driving experiment (see guardrails). 6. **Journal.** Append the iteration record before ending the pass.
Hard guardrails
These are not suggestions; violating any of them ends the campaign pass.
- **Allowlist** — a campaign PR may only touch: `products/*/mcp/tools.yaml`,
`products/*/skills/**`, `services/mcp/evals/**`, the codegen outputs of `pnpm generate-tools` / `scaffold-yaml` (`services/mcp/src/tools/generated/**` and `services/mcp/schema/generated-tool-definitions.json`), and docs. Anything else (handler code, package manifests, workflows, migrations, auth paths) → stop and hand the finding to a human as a draft PR or report instead.
- **Read-only against data.** The harness and all production queries are
read-only. Never create, mutate, or delete customer-visible objects while measuring.
- **Evidence or it didn't happen.** No PR without a baseline score, an after
score, and the exact harness commands used.
- **Benchmark integrity.** Never edit `benchmark/tasks.yaml` in the same PR as
a fix it validates — changing the exam and the answer together proves nothing. Benchmark changes are their own PR and bump `version`.
- **Budgets.** Respect the operator's iteration/token/PR caps (default: stop
after 3 open unmerged campaign PRs). Two failed attempts on an issue parks it permanently.
- **Kill switch.** If the campaign config, its feature flag, or the operator
says stop — stop mid-iteration, journal state, end cleanly.
Failure modes to expect
- A description change that helps one intent can steal traffic from the right
tool for another — that's why the no-regression sample is mandatory. The intent-cluster snapshot's `tool_overlaps` (see [`exploring-mcp-intent-clusters`](../exploring-mcp-intent-clusters/SKILL.md)) lists exactly which pairs compete for which intents: snapshot it before a description rewrite and recompute after, and treat a capture shift in an overlapping pair as the regression signal.
- Probe latency varies with stack warmth; compare medians across ≥3 runs
before attributing a latency change to your fix.
- Tool-presence misses can be feature-flag gating, not catalog absence —
check `getToolsForFeatures` gating before "fixing" discoverability.
:hedgehog: PostHog is the leading platform for building self-driving products. Our developer tools – AI observability, analytics, session replay, flags, experiments, error tracking, logs, and more – capture all the context agents need to diagnose problems, uncover opportunities, and ship fixes. Steer it all from Slack, web, desktop, or the MCP.
Repo: posthog/posthog
Other skills on posthog.
- /analyzing-expensive-users
Analyze the most expensive users in AI observability and explain why they cost so much. Use when the user asks about top spenders, expensive users, per-user LLM cost, user-level cost drivers, or patterns behind high AI observability spend.
Open skill - /creating-online-evaluations
Author continuously-running online evaluations in PostHog AI observability, grounded in real failure modes you've identified. Use when the user wants evaluations that automatically score new generations or whole traces going forward — "create an eval to catch X", "continuously
Open skill - /exploring-ai-failures
Find where an AI/LLM application is failing in production and surface the failure patterns, working from real traces. Use when someone wants to understand what's going wrong with an AI feature, find and categorize failure modes, triage errors, or investigate quality issues
Open skill - /exploring-llm-clusters
Investigate AI observability clusters — understand usage patterns in AI/LLM traffic, compare cluster behavior, compute cost/latency metrics, and drill into individual traces within clusters.
Open skill - /exploring-llm-costs
Investigate LLM spend in PostHog — total cost over time, cost by model, provider, user, trace, or custom dimension, token and cache-hit economics, and cost regressions. Use when the user asks "how much are we spending on LLMs?", "which model / user / feature is most expensive?",
Open skill - /exploring-llm-evaluations
Investigate AI observability evaluations — `hog` (deterministic code-based), `llm_judge` (LLM-prompt-based), and `sentiment` (user-message sentiment). Find existing evaluations, inspect their configuration, run them against specific generations, query individual results, and
Open skill

