Atlas absence index

request_capability

ASK US FOR WHAT IS NOT HERE. What would you like to buy? Tell us even if it is not in this inventory. If what you need is a machine-readable convention, or a property of one across a host population, we can usually measure it for you — and if we cannot, we will say so. Call the request_capability tool with want describing what you need. Free text is fine. A contact is optional and only used to reply. Free, no credential, no payment.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "want": "<want>"
    },
    "name": "request_capability"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`want`	Yes	What you need. Free text. Required.
`contact`	No	Optional, only used to reply to you.
`would_pay`	No	Optional: what it would be worth to you.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description covers the important safety facts itself: free, no credential, no payment, contact optional and used only for reply. However it leaves open the crucial behavior an agent needs — how or when the answer comes back, since there is no output schema and no turnaround expectation beyond 'we will say so'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the intent, but the all-caps hook and the near-duplication of 'Free text is fine' with the schema plus 'Free, no credential, no payment' make it longer than the payload warrants. Several clauses repeat the same no-cost/no-friction point.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter free-text intake tool with no output schema, it covers cost, permissions, optional fields and the failure mode. The main gap is what happens after submission — how the requester is answered — which an agent would want to know.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description restates `want` and `contact` semantics already in the schema and says nothing about `would_pay`, adding no meaning beyond structured fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action: submit a request for a capability not present in the inventory, and instructs calling the tool with `want`. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the data-listing siblings (absence_rate, host_report) by scoping itself to 'what is not here', though it never names a sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear eligibility guidance — use it for anything absent from the inventory, including machine-readable conventions or cross-population properties — and states the fallback ('if we cannot, we will say so'). It does not explicitly tell the agent to check the inventory tools first or name alternatives, so the when-not side is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Atlas absence index tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?