@instantreply/mcp

get_developer_capabilities

Read-only

Check which API and MCP capabilities your current API key scopes and plan tier allow before making calls.

Instructions

Show which API/MCP capabilities are allowed by the current API key scopes and plan tier.

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": "get_developer_capabilities"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the scoping context (API key scopes and plan tier) but does not describe the return shape, which is a gap given no output schema exists.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It delivers the purpose and the determining factors without padding.

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?

For a parameterless read tool with annotations covering safety, the description is almost sufficient. However, with no output schema, it does not indicate what the returned capability list looks like — e.g., whether it enumerates permitted API/MCP operations or just summarizes them — leaving a small but real 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. The description correctly implies that the result is determined entirely by the ambient API key and plan tier, which is enough for a parameterless tool.

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 a clear verb (show) and resource (API/MCP capabilities), specifying what determines the result (API key scopes and plan tier). This distinguishes it from usage-related siblings like get_usage or get_developer_limits, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied — checking what the current API key is permitted to do — but the description offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with sibling tools such as get_developer_limits or get_developer_onboarding.

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