Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
abox-tools

abox-tools

by A-Box-of-Tools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

abox.tools local capabilities

abox_capabilities
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists supported local operations, limits, and installed browser availability so agents can verify what can run before processing images, PDFs, or metadata. Does not read user files.

Instructions

List supported local operations, limits, and installed browser availability. Does not read user files.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "abox_capabilities"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a genuine extra commitment — "Does not read user files" — which is useful privacy context beyond the annotations, but says nothing about cost, freshness, or whether results are cached/environment-dependent.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences, no waste, with the positive capability statement front-loaded and the privacy caveat second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema discovery tool the description covers the main question (what capability information is available) including browser availability, which is environment-dependent. It could say slightly more about what the caller gains before invoking it, but nothing essential is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Zero-parameter tool, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The schema is trivially complete for an empty object.

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 verb ("List") and a concrete resource set (supported local operations, limits, installed browser availability). This reads clearly as a discovery/meta tool, distinguishing it from the sibling operation tools (image_compress, pdf_split, exif_remove) without needing to name them.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: mentioning "limits" and "installed browser availability" hints the agent should call this before attempting an operation, but there is no explicit "use when" or "do not use for" statement, and no routing to siblings.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools