Retrieve details for a scoped credential-use capability by its handle to verify permitted brokered HTTP or SSH actions without exposing underlying credentials.
Describe one exact credential-use capability by handle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expiry | Yes | ||
| handle | Yes | ||
| key_id | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| methods | No | ||
| resource | Yes | ||
| injection | No | ||
| operation | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Describe' weakly implies a read-only lookup, but the description never states that, nor does it cover permissions, behavior on an unknown/expired handle, or what the returned capability metadata represents.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is tight, though its terseness comes at the cost of the guidance captured under other dimensions.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool takes only one required string. However, with no annotations and no statement of how to obtain a handle or what happens on an invalid one, the definition is thin for an agent trying to use it correctly in sequence after list_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?
One parameter with 0% schema description coverage; the description only restates that the handle identifies a specific capability. It adds no meaning about the 44-character base64 format or where valid handles originate, so the agent gains nothing beyond the schema's own type constraints.
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?
States a specific verb ('Describe') and resource ('credential-use capability'), plus the lookup key ('by handle'). The word 'one exact' implies a single-item fetch versus the sibling list_capabilities and invoke_capability, though those siblings are never named.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling alternatives for listing or invoking capabilities. The phrase 'by handle' hints that a handle is a prerequisite, but where that handle comes from (presumably list_capabilities) is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.