discover_capabilitiesDevuelve el contrato de datos de VamosAlicante: secciones disponibles, tipos de dato (LIVE, CALCULATED, CATALOG), frescura, fuentes oficiales y la política de acceso para agentes. Llamar primero cuando no se sabe qué herramienta usar.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, so safety and idempotency are declared. The description adds useful context about the content of the contract (freshness, official sources, access policy) and the necessity of calling it first, which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 concise sentences. The first states the core purpose and enumerates the contract contents; the second gives a clear usage directive. No fluff, and the critical info is front-loaded.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema, the description enumerates the categories of information returned (sections, data types, freshness, sources, access policy) and frames it as a 'data contract', which sufficiently tells an agent what to expect. For a discovery tool used as an entry point, this is complete.
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 input schema is empty and the description need not elaborate. Per guidelines, baseline for 0 parameters is 4; description does not mislead or add unnecessary detail.
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 tool returns the data contract of VamosAlicante, listing specific elements (sections, data types, freshness, sources, access policy). It uses a specific verb ('Devuelve') and distinguishes itself from siblings by instructing to call it first when unsure which tool to use.
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 'Llamar primero cuando no se sabe qué herramienta usar' — a direct when-to-use instruction. It implies when to use alternatives (when you know the tool), and the discovery purpose is unambiguous.
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.
Several tools overlap in purpose: find_transit_stop and resolve_entity both resolve stops, while get_current_state, next_departures, favorite_stop, parking_availability, and beach_conditions all provide state/arrival information in different forms. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong tool when asked for simple arrival or status information.
All names use snake_case and are readable, but the pattern is mixed: some are verb-led (find_place, get_current_state, resolve_entity), some are noun phrases (beach_conditions, fuel_prices, flight_status), and others are quirky (whats_on, catch_vehicle_decision). This is not chaotic, but it lacks a strong consistent convention.
With 16 tools, the server is just above the ideal 3-15 range, but the broad Alicante information domain justifies the count. Each tool covers a distinct vertical or query path, and the set feels reasonably scoped rather than bloated.
The tool surface covers the main Alicante information domains well: transit, beaches, parking, food, places, flights, fuel, weather, and events, plus discovery/resolution helpers. There are minor gaps such as no direct traffic or bike-sharing tool, but agents can work around them via find_place or search_alicante.