get_mcp_capabilities

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Exposes' implies a read-only introspection operation, but the description does not mention side effects, response structure, or any operational caveats. It is not contradictory, but it is minimal.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes to identifying the resource and the kind of information exposed.

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 simple introspection tool with two schema-documented optional parameters, the description is adequate at a high level. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, a brief note on return format or intended use would make it complete enough for an agent to call confidently.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both optional parameters (client_host, client_name) are already clearly documented in the schema. The tool description adds no information about how these parameters affect the returned capabilities, but it does not need to restate the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Exposes') and names the resource ('holy-bible-mcp') with three scoped facets: active capabilities, mode profiles, and status. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_p2p_swarm_status or get_model_recommendations, but it is clear enough about the general purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus the sibling tools, no use-case framing, and no stated prerequisites. The description only says what the tool exposes, leaving the agent to infer when it would be relevant.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.