Get full details for a specific capability including required inputs, expected outputs, confidence level, and domain. No API key required. Returns CAPABILITY_NOT_FOUND if the id does not exist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| capability_id | Yes | The capability ID (e.g. climate_risk_assessment, carbon_assessment) |
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 discloses that no API key is required and that it returns CAPABILITY_NOT_FOUND for non-existent IDs, both behavioral facts. It also lists the fields it returns. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the nature of a 'get' operation implies it. This is solid coverage for a simple retrieval 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?
Two concise sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded and additional details (auth, error) efficiently included. No wasted words, perfectly structured for quick parsing.
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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers the operation, the data returned, authentication, and error behavior. The only minor gap is a lack of detail on the exact structure of the output, but the listed fields give a reasonable overview.
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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, including an example. The description adds no additional semantics beyond 'specific capability', which is redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter thoroughly.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'full details for a specific capability', enumerating the specific data returned (required inputs, expected outputs, confidence level, domain). It distinguishes from siblings like discover_capabilities (listing) and quote_* tools (pricing) by focusing on retrieving details for a known capability ID.
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 usage when you have a specific capability ID and need its details, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as discover_capabilities for listing all capabilities or quote tools for pricing. It notes 'No API key required' and the error condition, providing some usage context, but lacks an explicit 'when to use this vs. that' statement.
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.