Skip to main content
Glama
nod-protocol

nod-mcp-server

Official
by nod-protocol
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Check a NOD capability

check_capability

Verify if a business supports specific actions like ordering or booking by checking its NOD manifest for endpoint URLs, authentication, and policy constraints.

Instructions

Given a domain and an action (e.g. order_food, book_appointment, search_products, get_pricing, view_menu, book_table, check_status, create_account), fetches the business's NOD manifest and reports whether the action is supported, the endpoint URL, authentication requirements, and any policy constraints.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesThe domain to check (e.g. "demo-restaurant.localhost").
actionYesThe action to check. Common values: order_food, place_order, view_menu, book_table, book_appointment, search_products, find_provider, get_pricing, check_inventory, check_status, create_account, get_docs, contact_support.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool does and returns, but does not mention side effects, prerequisites (e.g., domain validity), or that it is read-only.

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?

Single sentence covering purpose, input, and output. Very concise with no wasted words, though slightly dense; could be broken into two sentences for readability, but still effective.

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

Completeness4/5

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

No output schema, but description adequately covers return fields (supported status, endpoint, auth, policies). Input is fully described. Missing error handling and sibling differentiation, but sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing common actions, providing concrete examples that aid selection beyond the schema's generic string type.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool checks if an action is supported for a given domain, listing output details. It differentiates from the sibling 'lookup_nod' by focusing on a specific action check.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus 'lookup_nod' or when not to use it. The description only implies usage through examples, lacking explicit context.

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