Lists coverage (45 sales tax states plus DC, and the 5 states with no statewide sales tax), the date the data was last checked, and related Nero Labs Rules servers. Free.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_capabilities"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add useful traits: it is a zero-parameter read of metadata, discloses the 'Free' cost profile, and lists the returned content. It omits any auth requirement or freshness caveats beyond the last-checked date. Adequate but not rich for an annotation-free tool.
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?
A single tight sentence that front-loads the resource and packs coverage figures, freshness, related servers, and cost with zero waste.
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?
For a zero-param, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back and that it is free. Only minor gaps remain, such as auth or rate-limit context, which are low risk for a metadata read.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly reinforces that this is an unfiltered listing, adding no misleading parameter expectations.
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?
States a specific verb (Lists) and enumerates exactly what is returned: coverage details, last-checked date, and related Rules servers. This clearly distinguishes it from the nexus-specific siblings, though it does not name them explicitly.
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?
No statement of when to call this tool versus the nexus tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only usage-relevant hint is the trailing 'Free', which implies no cost but does not guide invocation timing.
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.