Retrieve read-only NVR capability details, including maximum channels, supported codecs, and feature flags, to check device limits before configuring or integrating.
Capability spec: max channels, codecs, feature flags (read-only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose '(read-only)', which is the key safety trait, but says nothing about authentication requirements, whether a module id is needed elsewhere, or any side effects or limits.
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?
A single compact line with the read-only safety cue placed at the end and the content listed up front. It is efficient, though slightly cryptic for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value detail need not be in the description, and zero params are easy. But in a 40+ tool server, the definition lacks any routing context to distinguish this spec lookup from the many other 'get_*' info tools.
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 there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is required.
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 names the resource (a module's capability spec) and enumerates what it returns (max channels, codecs, feature flags), which helps an agent distinguish it from e.g. nvr_get_device_info. However there is no verb and 'Capability spec' is a noun phrase, so the action is only implied.
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 when-to-use guidance is given, and with ~40 siblings like nvr_list_modules, nvr_get_device_info, and nvr_get_video_resolutions, an agent gets no help deciding when this spec query is the right call versus those alternatives. The only implicit cue is the returned content.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.