Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Routes multi-tool workflows through MCP servers for large datasets and pipelines. Use when Bash tool overhead is limiting throughput on data-heavy tasks.
.claude/skills/athola-mcp-code-execution/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-01 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 58% | 0% |
| case-03 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 141% | 0% |
| case-04 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 104% | 0% |
| case-05 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 18% | 0% |
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 48% | 0% |
This skill is an orchestration hub, not a CLI. It activates inside a Claude Code session when one of the trigger keywords below appears, or when invoked explicitly:
Skill(conserve:mcp-code-execution)The hub then routes to the relevant sub-skill modules (mcp-subagents, mcp-patterns, mcp-validation) based on the detected workflow shape. There is no separate install step or CLI entry point.
code execution, MCP, tool chain, data pipeline, MECW> MCP Tool Search (Claude Code 2.1.7+): When MCP tool > descriptions exceed 10% of context, tools are automatically > deferred and discovered via MCPSearch instead of being loaded > upfront. This reduces token overhead by ~85% but means tools > must be discovered on-demand. Haiku models do not support tool > search. Configure threshold with ENABLE_TOOL_SEARCH=auto:N > where N is the percentage.
> Subagent MCP Access Fix (Claude Code 2.1.30+): SDK-provided > MCP tools are now properly synced to subagents. Prior to 2.1.30, > subagents could not access SDK-provided MCP tools: workflows > delegating MCP tool usage to subagents were silently broken. No > workarounds needed on 2.1.30+.
> Claude.ai MCP Connectors (Claude Code 2.1.46+): Users logged > into Claude Code with a claude.ai account may have additional > MCP tools auto-loaded from claude.ai/settings/connectors. These > tools contribute to the tool search threshold count. If > workflows unexpectedly trigger tool search or context inflation, > check /mcp for claude.ai-sourced connectors. Known reliability > issue: connectors can silently disappear (GitHub #21817).
> MCP Prompt Cache Fix (Claude Code 2.1.70+): MCP servers with > instructions connecting after the first turn no longer bust the > prompt cache. Previously, a late-connecting MCP server would > invalidate cached prompt prefixes, increasing token costs for > the rest of the session. On 2.1.70+, prompt cache reuse is > preserved regardless of when MCP servers connect.
> ToolSearch Reliability Fix (Claude Code 2.1.70+): Empty > model responses after ToolSearch are fixed. The server was > rendering tool schemas with system-prompt-style tags that could > confuse models into stopping early. ToolSearch-heavy workflows > (many deferred MCP tools) are now more reliable.
mcp-code-execution:assess-workflowmcp-code-execution:route-to-modulesmcp-code-execution:coordinate-mecwmcp-code-execution:synthesize-resultsmcp-code-execution:assess-workflow)pythondef classify_workflow_for_mecw(workflow): """Determine appropriate MCP modules and MECW strategy""" if has_tool_chains(workflow) and workflow.complexity == "high": return { "modules": ["mcp-subagents", "mcp-patterns"], "mecw_strategy": "aggressive", "token_budget": 600, } elif workflow.data_size > "10k_rows": return { "modules": ["mcp-patterns", "mcp-validation"], "mecw_strategy": "moderate", "token_budget": 400, } else: return { "modules": ["mcp-patterns"], "mecw_strategy": "conservative", "token_budget": 200, }
Delegate to mcp-validation module for detailed risk analysis:
pythondef delegate_mecw_assessment(workflow): return mcp_validation_assess_mecw_risk( workflow, hub_allocated_tokens=self.token_budget * 0.5 )
mcp-code-execution:route-to-modules)pythonclass MCPExecutionHub: def __init__(self): self.modules = { "mcp-subagents": MCPSubagentsModule(), "mcp-patterns": MCPatternsModule(), "mcp-validation": MCPValidationModule(), } def execute_workflow(self, workflow, classification): results = [] # Execute modules in optimal order for module_name in classification["modules"]: module = self.modules[module_name] result = module.execute( workflow, mecw_budget=classification["token_budget"] // len(classification["modules"]), ) results.append(result) return self.synthesize_results(results)
mcp-code-execution:coordinate-mecw)mcp-code-execution:synthesize-results)pythondef synthesize_module_results(module_results): """Combine module results into a single status dict.""" return { "status": "completed", "token_savings": calculate_savings(module_results), "mecw_compliance": verify_mecw_rules(module_results), "hallucination_risk": assess_hallucination_prevention(module_results), "results": consolidate_results(module_results), }
modules/mcp-coordination.md for cross-module orchestrationmodules/mcp-patterns.md for common MCP execution patternsmodules/mcp-subagents.md for subagent delegation strategiesmodules/mcp-validation.md for MECW compliance validationWhen MECW limits exceeded:
(aggressive/moderate/conservative) with the correct module roster (mcp-subagents, mcp-patterns, mcp-validation) selected based on tool-chain length and data size
throughout the workflow; any breach triggers the hub-level emergency response (delegate to mcp-validation, route to mcp-subagents, apply compression)
synthesize_module_results returns a dict with all fourkeys: status, token_savings, mecw_compliance, hallucination_risk
greater than 80% compared to running the same workflow via direct Bash tool chaining
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→pass | 14,616 | 8,723 | -40% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,488 | 3,922 | +58% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→fail | 15,811 | 17,646 | +12% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,623 | 4,405 | +68% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→pass | 9,408 | 13,450 | +43% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,686 | 4,067 | +141% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→pass | 10,220 | 5,566 | -46% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,607 | 3,283 | +104% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | fail→pass | 26,008 | 2,756 | -89% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,308 | 2,726 | +18% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 13,576 | 2,251 | -83% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,135 | 2,670 | +25% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | 10,598 | 1,999 | -81% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,819 | 2,696 | +48% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | 15,170 | 1,662 | -89% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,348 | 2,587 | +10% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | fail→pass | 12,800 | 2,080 | -84% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,248 | 2,574 | +15% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | fail→pass | 10,476 | 1,558 | -85% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,774 | 2,551 | +44% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | fail→pass | 10,894 | 2,043 | -81% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,599 | 2,610 | +63% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | fail→pass | 12,595 | 2,370 | -81% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,737 | 2,655 | +53% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | fail→pass | 6,948 | 1,832 | -74% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,059 | 2,556 | +141% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | fail→pass | 10,474 | 1,863 | -82% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,528 | 2,577 | +69% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→pass | 8,661 | 1,586 | -82% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,215 | 2,589 | +113% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | 10,757 | 1,625 | -85% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,638 | 2,585 | +58% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→pass | 8,744 | 2,537 | -71% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,164 | 2,721 | +134% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | fail→pass | 7,818 | 1,833 | -77% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,140 | 2,623 | +130% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | fail→pass | 7,892 | 2,133 | -73% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,178 | 2,655 | +125% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 3,684 | 3,891 | +6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 594 | 2,896 | +388% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 6,911 | 2,968 | -57% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,050 | 2,816 | +168% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 3,805 | 4,339 | +14% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 632 | 2,974 | +371% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +77 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.