relay_acquisition_capabilitiesRetrieves available VNC console options per backend image version, giving agents configuration details without changing VM ownership.
Read the backend's versioned VNC console options for the images it serves. Read-only: it neither acquires a VM nor recovers ownership of one.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context by explicitly stating it 'neither acquires a VM nor recovers ownership of one,' clarifying behaviors beyond the generic annotation hints. This is useful behavioral disclosure about side-effect boundaries without contradicting the annotations.
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 two concise sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the clarifying non-behavior sentence adds meaningful distinction without redundancy.
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 inspection tool with strong annotations, the description covers purpose and side-effect boundaries sufficiently. It does not describe the return format, but this is a minor gap given the simple nature of the tool and the absence of an output schema.
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 the schema fully documents that no inputs are needed. The description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies here.
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 specific verb and resource: 'Read the backend's versioned VNC console options for the images it serves.' It also explicitly differentiates the tool from acquisition and ownership-recovery actions by saying it 'neither acquires a VM nor recovers ownership of one,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like relay_acquire and relay_console_resolve.
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 implies this tool is for inspecting capabilities without side effects, and the read-only clarification helps an agent understand not to expect acquisition. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as relay_acquire or relay_console_resolve, nor when not to use it. Usage context is present but indirect.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.