get_capabilitiesGet the public endpoints, stable aliases, and exact Chat Completions constraints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mcpUrl | Yes | ||
| docsUrl | Yes | ||
| accountUrl | Yes | ||
| apiBaseUrl | Yes | ||
| openapiUrl | Yes | ||
| modelAliases | Yes | ||
| accountChanges | Yes | ||
| chatCompletions | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the specific data scope (endpoints, aliases, constraints) but no additional behavioral context such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or response size.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, contains zero filler. Every word contributes to defining the tool's output scope.
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?
With no parameters and an output schema present, the description sufficiently defines what the tool returns. It explicitly lists the three content categories, making the tool's purpose self-contained.
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 schema has zero parameters and the description doesn't need to elaborate on parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no params to describe.
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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly enumerates three distinct resource types: public endpoints, stable aliases, and exact Chat Completions constraints. This precisely distinguishes it from siblings like get_usage and list_models.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of get_usage, list_models, or any decision criteria for selecting this capability endpoint.
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.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: capabilities, usage, and model listing. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, using either 'get_' or 'list_' for retrieval operations. The pattern is predictable and readable.
With only 3 tools, the server is tightly scoped to its purpose of providing API information and usage. Each tool is necessary and the count is appropriate for a read-only info service.
The set covers the essential informational needs for the Frontier API: capabilities, usage, and available models. There are no obvious gaps given the stated server purpose.