find_capabilityFind enabled service tools for a plain-language question.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| question | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals nothing about the tool's behavior. It does not state what the output looks like, whether it searches a catalog, returns a list of tool names, or provides any details about the execution or side effects. The description adds no transparency beyond the annotation.
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?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence with no unnecessary words. The structure is clear and direct, making it easy to read. However, the brevity sacrifices essential detail, so it is not a perfect score.
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 tool's simple interface (one string parameter), the description provides a minimal level of context. However, it fails to explain what 'enabled service tools' are, how they relate to the 'question,' or what the expected output is. This leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to decide whether to use this tool.
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 only parameter, 'question', is not described in the schema, and the description only vaguely hints that it should be a 'plain-language question.' There is no elaboration on the expected format, length, or scope of the question, so the parameter's meaning remains under-specified.
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 states a clear action ('Find') and a resource ('enabled service tools') with an input ('plain-language question'), which distinguishes it from sibling search tools. However, the term 'capability' is ambiguous and the description does not specify what kind of tools are returned or how they relate to the question, leaving some purpose unclear.
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 instead of the many sibling search tools. It merely says 'for a plain-language question,' which is not a clear condition or scenario. There is no mention of when this tool is the preferred choice or what alternatives exist.
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.
Every tool has a unique purpose, and the descriptions are detailed enough to clearly distinguish between search, list, get, and specific operations across domains. No two tools overlap in function.
Domain tools follow a consistent '<domain>_<verb>_<noun>' pattern, but gateway-level tools like 'call_tool', 'find_capability', 'inspect_tool', 'search_services', and 'status' lack the prefix, introducing a minor inconsistency. Overall still readable and predictable.
With 35 tools, the count exceeds the typical 3–15 range, but this is a gateway aggregating multiple distinct domains (holidays, laws, opendata, recalls, etc.), making the larger set justified. The count feels appropriate for the server's purpose.
Each domain offers a full set of operations: search, list, get, and domain-specific actions (like count_business_days or get_document_changes). Gateway meta-tools cover discovery, inspection, and invocation, leaving no obvious gaps.