Get Capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well-covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the machine-readable format and the categories of capabilities returned, which goes beyond what the annotations convey.

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 sentence that leads with the action ('Return') and object ('capability flags'), then lists the key categories. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or vague wording.

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 zero parameters, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema, this tool has low complexity. The description fully covers what the tool does and the scope of its response, so no additional information is needed.

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 baseline score is 4. The description doesn't need to explain any parameter semantics, and the schema is empty. The output schema exists, so the return payload is defined elsewhere.

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 ('Return') and resource ('capability flags for this MCP server'), and lists the domains covered (block, database, collaboration, export). This clearly distinguishes it from all sibling tools, which operate on workspaces, documents, or collections rather than server-level capabilities.

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 provides clear context that this is a server-level capability discovery tool, which is distinct from any sibling. It doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the scope is obvious enough that an agent would only invoke this when checking server support. The listed capability categories further suggest when it would be useful.

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