describe_capabilitiesCheck which bill payments AbaPay supports—airtime, data, electricity, cable, and more—including paused services and sample requests. Use it first to confirm eligibility.
List what AbaPay can pay (airtime, data, electricity, cable, etc.), any services currently paused, and example requests. Call this first if unsure what is supported.
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It clearly states this is a listing/information operation and specifies the kinds of information returned (supported services, paused items, example requests). There are no hidden side effects implied, and the read-only nature is strongly conveyed by 'List' and 'Call this first.'
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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and output content, and the second sentence adds a practical usage directive. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given there is no output schema, the description covers return content by naming the categories of information an agent can expect. It also provides situational context ('if unsure what is supported') and has no parameters to document. The tool is fully specified for correct invocation and interpretation.
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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because param semantics are trivially satisfied and no additional explanation 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('what AbaPay can pay'), along with two additional output categories (paused services, example requests). This clearly distinguishes it from the other tools, which handle balances, plans, payments, and schedules. The phrase 'Call this first if unsure what is supported' reinforces its role as a general discovery 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?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'if unsure what is supported.' While it does not name sibling tools or describe when not to use it, the broad capabilities focus makes the primary use case obvious. It could be stronger by naming alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.