guide-registry

Traverse the capability spine (books · guides · KSAO elements · jobs)

list_capabilities

Read-only

Traverse the capability spine joining books, guides (capability packages), KSAO-grade elements and jobs. Use min_guides=2 for the cross-cutting capabilities that span many guides, role= for what a job requires, capability_detail= for one package with its elements and books hydrated. ksao_type/canon_component_id are null by design where unresolved — treat null as 'not yet joined', never as 'no link'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Substring match on the element label.
`role`	No	Elements required by this job role, e.g. compensation-analyst.
`limit`	No	Cap the rows returned (default 200). `total` always reports the true count.
`has_job`	No	Only elements that some job requires (via a career guide).
`ksao_type`	No	knowledge \| skill \| ability \| other — from a panel validated at 95.1% on gold O*NET labels. 'other' is UNVALIDATED (no gold labels existed for it).
`capability`	No	Elements taught by this capability (guide slug).
`min_guides`	No	Only elements taught by >= N capabilities. 2 gives the cross-cutting spine.
`conflicting`	No	Only elements where 2+ non-career guides define the same label differently — these need a ruling.
`construct_class`	No	person-attribute (knowledge/skill/ability — what a JOB requires and a learner develops) \| condition-or-outcome (what a capability PRODUCES, e.g. 'Retention & Workforce Stability'). Only ~30% of elements are person attributes — filter to these for 'what does this role need'.
`capability_detail`	No	Return ONE capability with its elements and books hydrated, instead of querying elements.
`has_canon_identity`	No	true = only elements resolved to a JobFrame canon component (an IDENTITY, panel-adjudicated). false = only unresolved.
`canon_promotion_candidate`	No	true = only elements the JobFrame canon has NO component for. This is a real answer, not a failed lookup — these are the constructs to PROMOTE into the canon.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`total`	No
`elements`	No
`returned`	No
`capability`	No
`spine_meta`	Yes
`api_version`	Yes

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and non-destructive; the description adds a valuable behavioral caveat: ksao_type/canon_component_id are null by design and unresolved nulls must not be read as 'no link'. This prevents a likely misinterpretation of query results.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the highest-value parameter recipes, and a critical null-semantics warning. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

For a 12-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the main entry points and the tricky null behavior. The 'capability spine' and 'books' concepts could use a gloss, but the surrounding schema and title carry that weight.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema already covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic intent on top of the schema by explaining the cross-cutting, role-filtering, and hydrated-package use cases that justify min_guides, role, and capability_detail.

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 specific action ('Traverse the capability spine') and names the resources it joins: books, guides, KSAO-grade elements, and jobs. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_guides and get_guide, which operate on a narrower resource.

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?

It gives explicit parameter-driven usage recipes: min_guides=2 for cross-cutting capabilities, role=<role> for job requirements, capability_detail=<slug> for a hydrated package. It does not explicitly say when to prefer get_guide or list_guides, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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

All guide-registry tools Inspect

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.

Resources

Need Help?