aapanel_capabilitiesDiscover every operation this server exposes, including its risk level, to see what is possible and which actions are currently blocked by the server mode.
Every operation this server exposes, with its risk level. Use it to discover what is possible and which operations are currently blocked by the server mode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1-alpha.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing that returned operations carry a risk level and a blocked-by-server-mode status, which is genuinely useful behavioral context and does not contradict 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?
Two short sentences, zero filler. The what (lists operations with risk level) is front-loaded ahead of the when (discovery and blocked-status check).
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?
With no output schema, the description has to hint at the return shape, and it does so by naming the two payload fields an agent cares about (risk level, blocked status). It could go slightly further by noting the result is a full catalog rather than a filtered subset, but it is sufficient for a zero-parameter discovery tool.
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs, and it correctly does not invent any.
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+resource: it enumerates every operation the server exposes, annotating each with a risk level. The phrase 'which operations are currently blocked by the server mode' also distinguishes it from every sibling tool, which are concrete panel/site/db operations rather than a discovery meta-tool.
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 says when to use it: 'to discover what is possible and which operations are currently blocked by the server mode.' That is a clear context for invocation. It names no exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling offers the same discovery capability, so there is little to disambiguate against.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.