Returns the list of tools available to this user (filtered by tier + flags). Use ONLY when the user asks "what can you do?". NOT a preflight — never call it to check whether a capability exists before acting; the tools you can see are the tools you have, so just call the one that fits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the filtering basis and adds a key behavioral rule ('the tools you can see are the tools you have'), making clear there is no hidden capability-check side effect. It doesn't mention output format, but that is minor for an introspection call.
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?
Two sentences front-load the purpose and then the guardrail. No filler or redundant restatement.
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 zero-parameter, low-complexity introspection tool, the description covers what it returns, when to call it, and when not to call it. It could have named get_capabilities/get_more_tools as siblings for disambiguation, but that is not required for correct invocation.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to add beyond the empty schema.
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?
States a specific verb ('Returns') and a clear resource: the per-user list of available tools, filtered by tier and flags. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the similarly named sibling get_capabilities, so it narrowly misses full sibling differentiation.
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?
Explicitly says use ONLY for the literal 'what can you do?' request and explicitly forbids using it as a preflight check. This is strong, unambiguous routing guidance.
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.
