chat-export-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

platforms_capabilities

Reads available models, modes, toggles, and attach options from the bound browser tab for a chosen provider, so you can confirm supported settings before sending prompts.

Instructions

Read composer capabilities (models, modes, toggles, attach) from the bound browser tab.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "platform": "<platform>"
    },
    "name": "platforms_capabilities"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`refresh`	No
`platform`	Yes	Provider id: chatgpt \| grok \| grok-x \| claude \| copilot \| qwen \| deepseek \| perplexity

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.7Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation and the source is the bound tab, but it omits refresh semantics, whether capabilities are cached or live, required binding state, failure modes, and any permission considerations.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the parenthetical list efficiently names the capability categories. It could be strengthened with prerequisite or refresh context, but the wording itself is tight.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description needs to be self-sufficient, yet it leaves out binding prerequisites, refresh behavior, and operational caveats. It does list the kind of capabilities returned, but that is not enough for a two-parameter tool where one parameter is undocumented.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema fully documents the platform enum, but the refresh parameter has no description and schema coverage is only 50%. The description mentions neither parameter and does not explain what refresh changes, so it adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific read action ('Read composer capabilities') and names the capability categories and source ('bound browser tab'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as platforms_list or platforms_status.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The phrase 'bound browser tab' hints at a binding requirement, but the description does not say whether browsers_bind or tabs_ensure must precede it or when to choose this over platforms_status or platforms_list.

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