mcp_capabilitiesExplain what the FXMacroData MCP server can do, which tools render MCP Apps, which tools return plain rows, what is public versus subscriber-only, and how to choose tools across ChatGPT, Claude, Cursor, Codex, and plain MCP clients. Use this when a user asks what is available, why visuals are not showing, or how to get the same result in a different interface.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond these flags by revealing the tool's meta-purpose: it explains server capabilities, tool rendering modes, and access tiers, which sets expectations for a textual, informative response.
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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose ('Explain what...') followed by specific sub-topics and usage triggers. Every clause adds value, with no redundant or filler language.
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?
As a capabilities/discovery tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and when to use it. It also complements sibling tools by clearly positioning itself as the gateway for overview questions, making the response complete for an agent.
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 schema places no burden on the description. With no params to describe, the baseline of 4 applies as the description correctly explains what the tool does without needing parameter details.
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 ('Explain') and a clear resource (FXMacroData MCP server capabilities) while enumerating concrete topics: which tools render MCP Apps, which return plain rows, public vs subscriber-only, and cross-client selection. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mcp_auth_guide or data_catalogue.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when a user asks what is available, why visuals are not showing, or how to get the same result in a different interface.' This provides actionable triggers and helps the agent route correctly versus 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 have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions; the visual_artifact variants are explicitly duplicate payloads for chart rendering. However, several task and analysis tools (macro_briefing_task, macro_research_pack_task, indicator_intel_task) have overlapping scopes and could cause misselection despite different outputs.
Tool names are consistently snake_case with systematic _task and _visual_artifact suffixes, making the pattern predictable. Minor deviations like 'ping', 'subscribe_for_mcp_access', and a few noun-only names (e.g., 'forex', 'commodities') break a strict verb_noun pattern but remain readable.
At 48 tools, the surface is far beyond the typical well-scoped server and risks overwhelming agents. The broad macro/FX domain justifies some size, but 48 is excessive and could be consolidated (e.g., merging visual artifact pairs or grouping task tools).
The tool set covers the full macro/FX workflow: data discovery (data_catalogue), raw queries (indicator_query, forex, commodities), visual artifacts, release calendar, news, COT, sentiment, seasonality, backtesting, scenario modeling, portfolio risk, and reference tools. No obvious dead ends or missing lifecycle operations for a read-heavy data server.