get_capabilitiesReturns a summary of all Carbone capabilities: supported formats, features, tool usage examples, and links to full documentation. Call this first if you are unsure what Carbone can do.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds context about the content of the summary and usage prioritization, but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover.
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-loaded with purpose and usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and usage guidance well. It mentions links to documentation but does not describe the return format; however, for a simple discovery tool this is sufficient.
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?
No parameters exist, and schema_description_coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter info since none are needed. Baseline score of 4 applies.
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 a summary of Carbone capabilities, listing specific content like supported formats, features, examples, and links. This distinguishes it from siblings that perform specific operations (e.g., convert_document, render_document).
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?
Explicit guidance is given: 'Call this first if you are unsure what Carbone can do.' It implies when to use, though no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. Clear and actionable.
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 targets a distinct resource or action: document conversion, template lifecycle, metadata, status checks, and listing operations are all clearly separated. The potential overlap between convert_document and render_document is explicitly addressed in their descriptions, with clear guidance on when to use each.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: convert_document, delete_template, download_template, get_api_status, list_templates, render_document, upload_template, etc. Verbs are precise and match the operation performed, making the API predictable.
Eleven tools is well-scoped for a document templating and rendering server. Each tool covers a meaningful part of the workflow: template management, rendering, conversion, metadata, and account-level discovery, without redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface covers the full template lifecycle: upload, list, download, update metadata, delete, and render. It also includes conversion, status checking, capability discovery, and tag/category enumeration, leaving no obvious dead ends for typical Carbone workflows.