discover_capabilitiesSearch the live SqueezeOS capability inventory. Lexical mode is always available; unified mode may add configured evidence-backed semantic/graph context without fabricating scores.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | lexical | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: lexical mode is guaranteed available, unified mode may add evidence-backed semantic/graph context, and it explicitly promises not to fabricate scores. This gives the agent useful trust and fallback expectations.
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 front-loaded sentences deliver the purpose and key mode distinction with no filler. Every clause earns its place, and the description stays appropriately compact for the tool's complexity.
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?
The schema covers parameter constraints and annotations cover safety, but there is no output schema and the description does not describe return shape, score semantics, or fallback behavior when unified mode is unavailable. It is enough to invoke the tool, yet leaves some operational context implicit.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It meaningfully explains the mode parameter and the distinction between lexical and unified behavior. However, it does not describe query semantics or limit behavior, leaving those to their names and schema constraints.
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 names a specific verb, resource, and scope: 'Search the live SqueezeOS capability inventory.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like inspect_capability, recommend_capability, or call_capability as the discovery/search entry point.
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 implies use for discovery/searching capabilities and mentions the two available modes, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer discover_capabilities over inspect_capability or recommend_capability, nor when to choose lexical versus unified mode. Some usage context is present, but no exclusions or alternative routing.
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.
Most tools have clear boundaries: discover searches, inspect examines one, compare contrasts, recommend interprets natural language, and call executes. Some ambiguity exists between capability_manifest and discover_capabilities for inventory listing, and recommend_capability could be confused with discover_capabilities, but descriptions generally prevent misselection.
All names are lowercase snake_case, and the core capability operations follow a verb_noun pattern. The noun-led capability_manifest, system_status, and x402_* resources deviate from that pattern, and capability names mix singular and plural, but the naming remains readable and internally consistent per subdomain.
Ten tools is well within the ideal range and each tool maps to a distinct part of the capability discovery, comparison, payment, and execution workflow. There are no obviously redundant or throwaway tools, so the count feels appropriately scoped.
The set covers the full read-only market-intelligence lifecycle: inventory, search, inspect, compare, recommend, call, payment readiness, contract lookup, and settlement evidence. Operator CRUD is explicitly outside scope, so there are no meaningful dead ends for an agent using this surface.