hermes_capabilitiesInspect bridge status and configured presets, skills, toolsets, providers, models, and policy to determine whether Hermes owns the requested capability.
Inspect bridge status, configured presets, skills, toolsets, providers, models, and policy before deciding whether Hermes owns the requested capability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.3v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint already declared, the description still adds value by enumerating exactly what can be inspected: presets, skills, toolsets, providers, models, and policy. The word 'Inspect' reinforces the read-only nature, and no contradiction exists. It does not describe output shape or return behavior, but that is a lesser gap given the annotation.
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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource list, then appends the decision-oriented use case. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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 parameterless, read-only capability discovery tool, the description covers what the tool inspects and when to use it. There is no output schema, so the exact return structure is unspecified, but the described contents are sufficient for an agent to understand expected results in most cases.
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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the prose adds no unnecessary parameter details.
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 a specific action ('Inspect') and resource ('bridge status, configured presets, skills, toolsets, providers, models, and policy'), matching the title 'Discover configured Hermes capabilities.' It is not a tautology and conveys the tool's scope, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close sibling hermes_status.
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?
The description includes an explicit use context: call this tool 'before deciding whether Hermes owns the requested capability.' This tells an agent when to reach for it, but it does not mention any exclusions or alternatives among the hermes_* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.