Retrieves capability details for a target, splitting implementation from qualification. Use it to inspect availability without granting any authority.
Read implementation and qualification separately; this grants no authority.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The phrase 'this grants no authority' adds a small disambiguation (reading capabilities does not confer them), but nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or the shape of the operation is disclosed.
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?
It is short, but brevity here comes from under-specification rather than economy; the sentence is opaque and does not front-load any actionable purpose. Every clause is vague rather than wasteful.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but with a nested required parameter, no parameter documentation, and a purpose that is never stated plainly, the definition is not complete enough for reliable selection or invocation.
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 single required 'target' parameter is a nested object with additionalProperties=true and 0% schema description coverage, so the schema explains almost nothing. The description never mentions this parameter or its expected contents, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 name implies listing capabilities, but the description speaks only of reading 'implementation and qualification separately,' which never states what the tool actually returns or over what domain. Terms like 'implementation' and 'qualification' are undefined jargon, so an agent cannot confidently distinguish this from environment.probe or evidence.read.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no named alternative among the ten siblings. The clause 'this grants no authority' reads as a warning rather than a routing rule, leaving selection entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.