list_capabilitiesList the current briefing, evidence-network, app-feed, API, MCP, content limits, and interpretation boundaries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the word 'current,' indicating the output reflects real-time state, and mentions 'content limits' and 'interpretation boundaries,' which are behavioral aspects. However, it does not describe the output format or structure, and no output schema exists. The description is consistent with annotations and adds modest context, but it does not go far beyond them.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action ('List') and then enumerates all the distinct items it returns. There is no fluff or redundant wording. It is appropriately concise while being informative.
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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive list of the categories it returns, which is sufficient for an agent to understand what it will get. It could arguably specify the format or structure of the response, but for a capabilities listing, the enumeration is clear enough. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly and interpret the result.
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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain semantically. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details. Schema coverage is trivially 100% with an empty object, so this dimension is fully satisfied.
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 uses a specific verb 'List' and enumerates concrete content categories (briefing, evidence-network, app-feed, API, MCP, content limits, interpretation boundaries). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_story or search_stories, which focus on stories or health. The tool's purpose as a capabilities overview is unambiguous.
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 title 'Discover the My Quant editorial product' implies a discovery purpose, and the description lists what it returns, making it the natural tool to invoke for an overview. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it vs. alternatives (e.g., 'use this before querying stories') nor any exclusion criteria. The usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: health check, exact story retrieval, latest feed listing, capability introspection, and search. There is no significant overlap that would cause misselection, as get_story is by exact ID, search_stories is flexible querying, and latest_stories is a chronological feed.
Names are all lowercase with underscores, and most follow a verb_noun pattern (get_health, get_story, list_capabilities, search_stories). latest_stories is the outlier, using an adjective-noun form, which is a minor deviation but still readable and predictable.
Five tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and covers the server's stated purpose of editorial discovery without redundancy or bloat. Each tool earns its place for a focused read-only surface.
The toolset covers core discovery workflows—retrieval by ID, listing, search, and capabilities. Minor gaps include lack of explicit pagination control for latest_stories (though 'bounded slice' implies some limit) and no filtering endpoint beyond search, but these are workable.