Aident AI

capabilities_execute

Execute a capability by exact name. Copy canonical Action names returned by capabilities_search or capabilities_get without modification; Actions may use integration or Sandbox-local execution backends, while Skill names use the Skill runtime. For requires-user-acknowledgement, show the effect and redacted inputs, ask the user, then retry the identical request with acknowledgementScope set to an available scope. For credit-approval-required, ask the user and retry once with the returned approvalToken. Before a side-effecting Action, call capabilities_get first: when it returns more than one active entry in userAccounts, surface the default alias and pass an explicit accountAlias whenever the user wants a non-default account; an omitted alias routes through the active default account, and the server rejects an omitted alias with account-selection-required only when no active default exists. Skill execution never accepts accountAlias.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Exact canonical Action name returned by capabilities_search or capabilities_get (e.g. "composio:reddit_tools:reddit_get_unread_inbox"). Actions may use integration or Sandbox-local execution backends. Do not use raw artifact names or dotted aliases.
`input`	No	Input arguments matching the capability schema
`timeoutSec`	No	Maximum hosted CLI runtime in seconds. Capped by the Action resource limit and the synchronous request budget.
`accountAlias`	No	Exact account alias from capabilities_get userAccounts for Actions whose Integration has multiple accounts. Requires the multi-account feature; omit for default routing.
`approvalToken`	No	One-time credit approval token returned in creditApproval.approvalToken by capabilities_preflight or credit-approval-required. Not used for Action risk acknowledgement.
`acknowledgementScope`	No	After requires-user-acknowledgement and explicit user approval, retry the identical Action and input with a scope listed in availableScopes (once, session, always).

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds substantial behavioral context: side-effecting Actions, integration vs Sandbox-local backends, default account routing, server rejection with account-selection-required, and retry flows for acknowledgement and credit approval. There is no contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the longer workflow sentences package related edge cases without filler or redundant restatement of schema defaults.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 6-parameter execution tool with no output schema, the description covers all invocation-critical behaviors: name selection, side-effect prechecks, acknowledgement and approval flows, account-selection edge cases, and backend distinctions. Nothing essential for correct use is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful non-schema context: exact name provenance and copying rules, retry semantics for approvalToken and acknowledgementScope, and accountAlias default-routing behavior with the Skill exclusion. This goes beyond merely restating parameter names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The lead sentence 'Execute a capability by exact name' provides a specific verb and resource, and the body immediately distinguishes Action execution from Skill execution, making the tool unmistakable next to siblings like capabilities_search, capabilities_get, and capabilities_preflight.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit workflow guidance: obtain canonical names from capabilities_search/get, call capabilities_get before side-effecting Actions, handle requires-user-acknowledgement with acknowledgementScope, handle credit-approval-required with approvalToken, and never pass accountAlias for Skill execution. This is concrete when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Aident AI tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool owns a distinct resource/action pair (e.g., search/get/preflight/execute for capabilities, read/feedback for skills, status/connect/disconnect for vault), and detailed descriptions make boundaries explicit. No two tools appear to do the same thing, and the preflight/execute separation is clearly delineated.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes bare nouns (auth, billing, vault), prefixed subject-verb pairs (capabilities_execute, skills_feedback), and the outlier 'loadout_bug_submit' with inconsistent pluralization (capabilities vs skills vs loadout). Although all tokens are lowercase and underscore-separated, there is no single predictable pattern, and some tools (e.g., 'billing') are action containers while others are single-action functions.

Tool Count5/5

Thirteen tools is well within the ideal 3–15 range, and each tool serves a clearly separable domain (authentication, billing, capabilities, skills, vault, audit, feedback, bug reporting). No tool feels redundant, and the count is appropriate for the breadth of functionality offered.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the full lifecycle for capabilities (search/get/preflight/execute/feedback) and handles account, billing, vault, audit, and support needs. The only gap is lack of a general skill search or listing capability—skills can only be read by exact canonical identity, which may impede discovery—but core workflows are otherwise complete.

Resources

Need Help?