list_capabilitiesReturns available evaluation tools, what they check, and their pricing. Call this first to understand what Axcess can evaluate and how much each evaluation costs.
This tool is FREE. All evaluation tools require USDC payment on Base network.
Returns: JSON with tool descriptions, pricing, and rubric categories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable non-schema context: the tool is FREE, while all evaluation tools require USDC payment on Base network. It also discloses the return format (JSON with descriptions, pricing, rubric categories). No contradictions with annotations.
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?
Three short sentences, each adding necessary information: what it returns, when to use it, and the payment/free distinction. No filler or redundant content. Front-loaded with the main purpose.
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, read-only catalog tool, the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, usage timing, pricing model, and return contents. Combined with annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), an agent has all needed information to invoke 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?
There are zero parameters, so the input schema provides no param details. The description compensates by describing the output (tool descriptions, pricing, rubric categories), giving the agent enough understanding of what the tool returns. A score of 4 is appropriate for a no-param tool where description explains semantics.
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 tool 'Returns available evaluation tools, what they check, and their pricing.' This is a specific verb+resource that uniquely identifies a catalog/list tool, distinct from sibling evaluation tools like evaluate_accessibility or evaluate_typography.
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?
Explicitly instructs 'Call this first to understand what Axcess can evaluate and how much each evaluation costs.' This tells the agent exactly when to use the tool and implies it is a prerequisite before running evaluations. It effectively differentiates from the sibling evaluation tools.
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.
The three tools have clearly distinct purposes with no overlap. evaluate_accessibility focuses on UI element accessibility, evaluate_typography handles typography-specific evaluation, and list_capabilities provides metadata about available tools. An agent can easily distinguish between them based on their specialized domains.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case formatting: evaluate_accessibility, evaluate_typography, and list_capabilities. This predictable naming convention makes the tool set easy to navigate and understand at a glance.
With only three tools, the set feels somewhat thin for a server focused on 'Design Accessibility Evaluation.' While the two evaluation tools cover distinct aspects, the domain suggests potential gaps in areas like color contrast evaluation or mobile-specific accessibility checks that aren't addressed.
The server covers two specific evaluation domains (general UI accessibility and typography) with dedicated tools, but lacks broader coverage expected for design accessibility. Missing are tools for color contrast evaluation, mobile/touch-specific checks beyond touch targets, and integration with design tools beyond the mentioned Figma example. The surface is functional but incomplete for comprehensive design evaluation.