Skip to main content
Glama

TrustyCap

by com.trustycap

List TrustyCap capabilities

trustycap_list_capabilities
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find the TrustyCap capability that solves a specific problem: add secure file storage, add application data, run work in the background, schedule work, make webhooks reliable, secure credentials, send transactional email, read documents, move money on proof. Returns every public capability: what it is for, when to choose it, what it will not do, the scopes a key needs, the meters it charges and the published price of each. Call this before assuming a capability exists. Covers vehicle intelligence, financing intelligence, document intelligence, protected transactions, digital life, exit paths and financing math.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
familyNoOptional family filter. Accepts the neutral name (vehicle, financing, documents, transactions, digital-life, exit-paths, finance-math) or the canonical id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: it says the tool returns every public capability and lists exactly what information is included (purpose, selection guidance, non-goals, scopes, meters, price). This helps the agent set expectations without contradicting annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a direct call-to-action. It is somewhat dense due to long enumerations of problem areas and family names, but each sentence contributes information and there is no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description compensates by detailing the returned fields (purpose, when to choose, non-guarantees, scopes, meters, price). It also covers the major functional families and provides a 'call before assuming' heuristic. The optional family filter is handled by the schema. This is sufficient for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the family parameter is fully documented in the schema, including accepted neutral names and canonical ids. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the weight.

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 description opens with a clear verb-resource pair ('Find the TrustyCap capability') and enumerates concrete problem areas (secure storage, background work, scheduling, webhooks, credentials, email, documents, payments). It explicitly says it returns every public capability with its purpose, scopes, meters, and price, making it distinct from the sibling list-kit and guide tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives an explicit trigger: 'Call this before assuming a capability exists.' It also implies this is the discovery entry point for capability lookup. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use them, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route to this tool first.

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

All TrustyCap toolsInspect
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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or decision point—capabilities, launch kits, native kits, and production readiness—but trustycap_guide and trustycap_production_readiness can both respond to a human asking what to build, and guide overlaps somewhat with the list_* tools in matching outcomes. The detailed descriptions resolve most ambiguity, so the set is largely clear.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a trustycap_<verb>_<noun> pattern, such as list_capabilities, get_launch_kit, and list_native_kits. trustycap_guide and trustycap_production_readiness break that convention with a bare verb and a noun phrase, but the shared prefix and snake_case style keep the naming mostly predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well-scoped for a reference and decisioning server covering three resource families plus guidance. Each tool has a clear purpose, and there are no redundant entries.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers listing and retrieving Launch Kits and Native Kits, enumerating capabilities, guided matching, and production-readiness evaluation. Minor gaps exist—such as no separate capability-detail tool and no tool to execute or install a kit—but those seem outside the server's informational scope.

Resources