Identify what a provider can do by querying its capabilities. Pass a provider ID to get a list of available features and constraints for your game art workflow.
Get the capabilities of a specific provider.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| provider_id | Yes | Provider ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not say what capabilities are returned, whether the provider must be active, or what happens when the provider is invalid. This is minimal disclosure.
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 focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and object, making it easy to scan.
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 one-parameter getter, the description is minimally viable, but it lacks any explanation of the output shape or how this relates to other provider tools. There is no output schema to compensate, so the agent receives only the bare minimum.
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?
The schema already documents provider_id with 100% coverage, and the description only says 'specific provider,' which adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the parameter 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 states a clear action ('Get') and a specific resource ('capabilities of a specific provider'). It is easy to understand the tool's basic function, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like art.provider.get or art.provider.health.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus related provider tools such as art.provider.get, art.provider.list, or art.provider.health. It simply restates the action without offering context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.