Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
doricomcp

doricomcp

by kulbiq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

list_capabilities

Returns a confirmation matrix of every Dorico MCP capability, its mechanism, and whether the live harness confirmed it, helping you verify supported actions.

Instructions

The confirmation matrix: every capability, its mechanism and whether the live harness confirmed it. [READ-ONLY: not yet confirmed by the live harness]

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_capabilities"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description does add a read-only disclosure via the bracketed tag, which is real value. However, the tag 'not yet confirmed by the live harness' is ambiguous — it could describe the tool's own status rather than the capabilities — and there is no statement about cost, side effects, or what a 'mechanism' field means.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the substance and the status tag appended. Nothing is padded, though the bracketed clause is cryptic enough that it does not fully earn its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and a zero-parameter read tool is intrinsically simple. Still, the description never defines what counts as a 'capability' or how this list relates to the describe_* siblings, leaving a conceptual gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter meaning the description needs to carry.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States the resource and its contents concretely: every capability, its mechanism, and whether the live harness confirmed it. The verb is left implicit (it is a listing tool) and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like describe_commands or describe_enums, which plausibly overlap, but an agent can still tell what it returns.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance is given, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as describe_commands or describe_enums. Usage is only implied by the fact that it is a list tool with no parameters.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools