get_capabilitiesDiscover Carbone's supported formats, features, tool usage examples, and documentation links. Call this first when unsure what Carbone can do.
Returns a summary of all Carbone capabilities: supported formats, features, tool usage examples, and links to full documentation. Call this first if you are unsure what Carbone can do.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the orientation role ('call first') but nothing about response size, caching, or side effects beyond what annotations provide.
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?
Two sentences, no filler, and the orientation cue is placed last as a directive. Every clause adds information about the return contents or the calling condition.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming the categories of content returned (formats, features, examples, doc links), which is enough for an agent to decide whether to call it. A note on response format or size would push this to a 5.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter semantics to document or miss. The description also does not introduce any phantom arguments.
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?
Specific verb (Returns) plus resource (Carbone capabilities) with an enumeration of what the payload contains: formats, features, usage examples, and documentation links. It is clearly a discovery tool, distinguishing it from action siblings like convert_document or render_document, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.
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?
Explicitly states the trigger: 'Call this first if you are unsure what Carbone can do.' That is a clear when-to-use condition. There is no when-not or named alternative (e.g., 'skip if you already know the format'), so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.