get_mcp_compatibility_manifestReturn the versioned MCP compatibility manifest, including canonical tools, aliases, and JSON argument schemas for remote clients. Defaults to the listed candle tools; profile='full' returns every callable tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile | No | 'golden' (default): the listed candle tools only. 'full': every callable tool, ~200 KB | golden |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / profileAdded value: +{
+ "default": "golden",
+ "description": "'golden' (default): the listed candle tools only. 'full': every callable tool, ~200 KB",
+ "enum": [
+ "golden",
+ "full"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the manifest is versioned and includes JSON argument schemas, which is useful context, but it does not disclose other behaviors such as response size or error conditions. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence fronts the core purpose, and the second efficiently explains the profile behavior. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it names the returned content and the two profiles. It could go slightly further by noting the JSON shape of the response, but the phrase 'JSON argument schemas' implies the manifest is JSON, so this is a minor gap rather than a blocker.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear enum description, including the ~200 KB note for 'full'. The description paraphrases the default and full profiles but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Return', the resource 'versioned MCP compatibility manifest', and its contents (canonical tools, aliases, JSON argument schemas). It also differentiates the two profiles, which distinguishes this meta-tool from the sibling data-lookup tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use the 'golden' vs 'full' profile, but it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or state when to prefer it over siblings. The usage context is implied by the tool's unique manifest-listing purpose, so it is adequate but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.