List the most recent CapabilityWire events (SDKs, MCP servers, models, tools, libraries). Optionally filter by category or a since timestamp.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ISO8601 lower bound on published_at. | |
| category | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only list operation and 'most recent' ordering, but it does not mention default limit behavior, how filters compose, or what the returned event shape looks like. It is not misleading, but it leaves room for ambiguity.
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 main action and resource. Every part adds useful information, and there is no filler or repetition.
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?
This is a simple optional-parameter list tool and the description covers the core purpose and filtering options. Still, without an output schema, a brief note about return format would improve completeness, and there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over search_capabilities.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'category' and 'since timestamp' and labels them as optional filters, adding some context beyond the bare schema. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or clarify the expected timestamp format, relying mostly on the schema for that.
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'), a specific resource ('CapabilityWire events'), and gives concrete examples of event types. It also includes scoping ('most recent') that helps distinguish it from siblings like get_capability, mark_seen, and search_capabilities.
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 says the tool lists recent events and can be optionally filtered, which implies when it would be used. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with search_capabilities or say when one should be preferred over the other, so the guidance is only implicit.
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 serves a clearly distinct purpose: fetching a single event, listing recent events, searching, and marking an event as seen. There is no meaningful overlap between get/list/search, and mark_seen is an action rather than a read operation.
Most tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern: get_capability, list_recent_capabilities, search_capabilities. mark_seen is a slight deviation since it omits the resource name, but it is still readable and predictable.
Four tools is well-scoped for a capability event feed: retrieve, list, search, and acknowledge. Each tool has a clear purpose with no redundancy.
The tool surface covers the core subscriber workflow: finding capabilities, fetching details, and marking delivery. Since this is a read-and-acknowledge feed rather than an authoring system, no obvious operations are missing.