list_capabilitiesList the evidence explorer, newsroom, API, feeds, MCP tools, audiences, and safety boundaries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api | Yes | ||
| mcp | Yes | ||
| feeds | Yes | ||
| schema | Yes | ||
| product | Yes | ||
| featured | Yes | ||
| boundaries | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating what the capability listing includes, especially 'safety boundaries,' which gives an agent a clearer picture of the tool's informational scope.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource list. Every element earns its place, and there is no redundant wording.
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-parameter discovery tool with an output schema and clear sibling context, the description is nearly complete. It could more explicitly frame itself as the capability discovery entry point, but nothing essential is missing for invoking it correctly.
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 are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds useful context about what the no-argument call returns.
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 the specific verb 'List' and names the exact scope: evidence explorer, newsroom, API, feeds, MCP tools, audiences, and safety boundaries. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_* tools, which each retrieve a single specific resource.
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 and title imply this is a discovery/entry-point tool, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus the get_* siblings. There is no direct guidance like 'use this first to see what is available' or mention of alternatives.
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 are clearly distinct, but the three palimpsest endpoints (context, bridge, corridors) all return related official aggregates and demand careful reading to avoid mis-selection. get_newsroom, get_overview, and get_story are more separable, though their retrieval roles still slightly overlap.
Tool names follow a consistent get_<noun> snake_case pattern, and list_capabilities is a standard exception for MCP introspection. The palimpsest_* subnames are terse and somewhat obscure, but they do not break the overall convention.
Seven tools is well-scoped for an evidence explorer: each covers a meaningful retrieval or orientation function without redundancy. The count is neither thin nor bloated for the stated purpose.
The core read-only exploration surface is covered: overview aggregates, newsroom analyses, story dossiers, country-level corridors, and capability discovery. The main gap is the lack of a general search or filter tool for drugs, routes, or time periods, but agents can work around this with the provided curated endpoints.