get_space_infoRetrieves the object types, writable properties, and collections in a Capacities space so you can inspect available structures before creating or updating content.
Get the structures (object types), their writable properties, and collections for your Capacities space.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the payload contents (object types, writable properties, collections), from which read-only, metadata-only behavior can be inferred, but it never states that it is non-mutating, what permissions or space selection are required, or whether results are cached/static.
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 front-loaded sentence with the resource and its three returned components listed in order of importance. No filler, no restatement of the tool name beyond what's needed.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of return-value information, and it gives content categories but not shape or format (e.g., whether properties are keyed by object type). For a zero-parameter discovery tool this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing at the response structure.
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 beyond the (empty) schema. Baseline 4 applies.
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?
Uses a specific verb ('Get') and enumerates exactly what is returned: structures (object types), their writable properties, and collections, scoped to 'your Capacities space'. This distinguishes it reasonably well from list_spaces (which enumerates spaces) and from the object CRUD siblings, though it never names those siblings 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?
There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The reader must infer that this is a discovery/metadata call useful before create_object or update_object; the description never says so.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.