Independent · Alpha development, 2026

MCP Skill Hub: scoped context with visible evidence

Independent project creator

I built MCP Skill Hub to retrieve relevant task evidence and skill descriptions without obscuring the user’s request or the source of the retrieved material. The current context path is deterministic and keeps permission decisions with the coding client.

Problem: relevant context competes with irrelevant context

A coding assistant has a finite context window. Large tool surfaces and unrelated project memories can use that space while making a request less clear. Retrieval is only useful if it selects relevant evidence and preserves the user’s intent.

The current design treats project identity and original source text as boundaries. A generated summary is useful context but cannot replace its source or become a new authorization.

Architecture: one retrieval service, two entry points

The inspected context-service documentation describes an MCP entry point and an optional client prompt hook using the same deterministic retrieval service. The original prompt is retained separately from supplemental evidence.

Retrieval selects bounded project context and skill descriptions with source references and omissions. Full skill bodies remain available through explicit tools. SQLite supports the indexed context; optional indexing and curation sit outside the interactive prompt path.

When the service is unavailable or times out, the original prompt passes through. Missing project identity does not justify substituting context from another recently opened project.

Original request and scoped evidence stay distinct

The user’s unchanged request reaches the coding client. An explicit MCP call or optional hook asks the context service for bounded, project-scoped evidence. Sources and omissions remain visible; indexing stays outside the request path. Retrieved content does not grant permission.

Open full-size SVG
MCP Skill Hub · evidence without rewriting intentThe original request reaches the coding client unchanged. Explicit MCP retrieval or an opt-in prompt hook retrieves bounded project evidence. Background indexing stays outside the request path and supplemental evidence is not authorization. MCP Skill Hub · evidence without rewriting intent Project scope and source provenance · coding client retains authority USER AND CLIENT AUTHORITY Original prompt remains intact User request Original words Coding client Model, permission and continuation decisions original prompt RETRIEVAL SERVICE Explicit MCP call or optional prompt hook Scoped retrieval Project identity + size limits Supplemental evidence Sources, omissions and selected descriptions retrieve evidence append evidence INDEXED SOURCE BOUNDARY Indexing / curation stays outside foreground request SQLite source index Original source text bounded lookup index No missing identity fallback to unrelated projects. Timeout passes the original prompt through. 92.41% less serialized schema payload is not a claim of equivalent whole-task savings or improved task quality. USER AND CLIENT AUTHORITY Original prompt remains intact RETRIEVAL SERVICE Explicit MCP call or optional prompt hook INDEXED SOURCE BOUNDARY Indexing / curation stays outside foreground request Request / integration Message / asynchronous work Persistence / data access

Decisions: retrieval is evidence, not control

The foreground context path needs no model call or API key. The client retains model choice, permission handling and continuation decisions. Automatic enrichment is opt-in; retired task interception and continuation behaviors are not part of the current path.

A retrospective alternative is broad automatic injection of all plausible context. It can increase recall while making irrelevant evidence and source confusion harder to detect. The documentation records an unpromoted broader selector experiment and requires whole-task evaluation before changing the foreground behavior.

Outcomes: smaller protocol payload, bounded qualification

The September 2026 measurement compares 87 versus 8 MCP tools and 16,362 versus 1,242 o200k_base tokens for compactly serialized schemas and server instructions: 92.41% less. This measures protocol payload, not total billed usage or development-task savings.

An isolated installed stdio smoke test checks integration, description retrieval, explicit content loading and prompt preservation. Synthetic marker tests assess source selection and scope boundaries, rather than general answer quality.

The published benchmark notes say whole-task promotion criteria have not passed. The case therefore reports the verified narrower result and leaves broader quality and savings claims open.

Learning: measure the quantity the user actually cares about

A smaller schema payload is a real measurement with a narrow meaning. It becomes a useful product outcome only if paired tasks in an installed client show preserved quality and practical benefit.

This work reinforced the distinction between evidence selection and agent authority. A source reference improves reviewability; it cannot authorize commands or manufacture a user instruction.

Questions & discussion

Does the measured 92.41% mean tasks cost that much less?

No. It compares serialized schemas and server instructions for two profiles. Clients may cache or transform them, and whole-task outcomes require separate evaluation.

Read the relevant section
Does the service rewrite prompts or approve actions?

The current context path preserves the original request and supplies supplemental evidence. Model selection, permission and continuation remain with the client.

Read the relevant section
What is required before promoting a new selector?

Scoped source relevance, latency/deadline behavior and installed-client paired-task quality/token evaluation. The broader selector remains unpromoted.

Read the relevant section

Sources & scope

  • MCP Skill Hub source

    Current context service inspected in local source October 2026; Independent project by Carlo Cancellieri

  • Context service design and boundaries

    Current context-service documentation inspected locally; Project documentation; older cached README descriptions are not the current foreground contract

  • Verified benchmark results

    September 2026 measurements; review candidate 006651208cb3923ccfcaa7695e394feed026e07d; Project benchmark report inspected locally