maestro_public_capabilitiesExplains what the hosted metrics demo can and cannot do, clarifying that it cannot access real Google, Bing, Yandex, or local desktop data.
Explain what this hosted metrics demo does and cannot do. It cannot access any real Google, Bing, Yandex, or local desktop data.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: it names the data sources that are explicitly out of reach (Google, Bing, Yandex, local desktop), which prevents an agent from over-promising results.
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 with no filler, and the affirmative scope statement is front-loaded ahead of the limitation. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema explainer, the definition covers purpose and the key constraint an agent must know. A brief note on what the response looks like (e.g., a capability list vs. prose) would close the remaining gap, but it is not essential for correct invocation.
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 disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. No parameter-level detail is needed or missing.
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 a specific verb ('Explain') and a concrete subject ('what this hosted metrics demo does and cannot do'), so an agent can tell this is a meta/capability-inquiry tool rather than a calculation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the look-alike sibling maestro_explain_search_metrics, leaving that disambiguation to inference.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this should be called when a user asks about the demo's scope or whether it reaches real data. There is no explicit 'use this when' statement and no exclusion naming the sibling tools it should not be confused with.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.