Aident AI

capabilities_get

Read-only

Get full metadata for a capability by exact canonical name.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Exact capability name. For integration-backed Actions, pass the canonical name returned by capabilities_search unchanged, for example "composio:gmail_tools:gmail_send_email". Bare or legacy Action names are not accepted; migrate them to ${integration_type}:${integration_name}:${action_name}.
`parts`	No	Specific parts to include (all if omitted). Use sourceCode for capability source.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`type`	Yes
`riskLevel`	No
`sourceCode`	No
`description`	Yes
`inputSchema`	No
`outputSchema`	No
`userAccounts`	No
`operationType`	No
`pricingSummary`	No
`executionBackend`	No
`requiredBundleId`	No
`requiredIntegrations`	Yes
`minimumAbilityVersion`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedAug 14, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / userAccounts

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "alias": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "createdAt": {
+        "format": "date-time",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "isDefault": {
+        "type": "boolean"
+      },
+      "lastUsedAt": {
+        "anyOf": [
+          {
+            "format": "date-time",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          {
+            "type": "null"
+          }
+        ]
+      },
+      "status": {
+        "enum": [
+          "active",
+          "expired"
+        ],
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "alias",
+      "isDefault",
+      "createdAt",
+      "lastUsedAt",
+      "status"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedAug 10, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "description": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "executionBackend": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "inputSchema": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "minimumAbilityVersion": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "operationType": {
+      "enum": [
+        "read",
+        "write"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "outputSchema": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "pricingSummary": {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "label": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "maxCreditsPerCall": {
+          "minimum": 0,
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "minCreditsPerCall": {
+          "minimum": 0,
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "type": {
+          "enum": [
+            "flat_rate",
+            "dynamic",
+            "mixed"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "type",
+        "label"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "requiredBundleId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "requiredIntegrations": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "riskLevel": {
+      "maximum": 5,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "sourceCode": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "name",
+    "description",
+    "type",
+    "requiredIntegrations"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedAug 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the constraint that the name must be exact and canonical, which is useful but does not go beyond that—no mention of error behavior, response details, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose without any redundancy or filler. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, output schema present, read-only annotation), the description covers the core action well. However, it misses a hint that the canonical name is typically obtained from capabilities_search, which would improve the workflow context. Still, the existing schema and annotation cover most needs, so the description is mostly complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (name and parts) having detailed descriptions including canonical name format, example, and allowed enum values for parts. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 "Get full metadata for a capability" and specifies the input "by exact canonical name," distinguishing it from sibling tools like capabilities_search (which find capabilities) and capabilities_execute (which runs them). The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage when you already have the exact canonical name but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. For instance, there is no direct guidance to use capabilities_search first to obtain the canonical name, nor any exclusions. The phrase "exact canonical name" offers some context but lacks explicit differentiation.

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

All Aident AI tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool owns a distinct resource/action pair (e.g., search/get/preflight/execute for capabilities, read/feedback for skills, status/connect/disconnect for vault), and detailed descriptions make boundaries explicit. No two tools appear to do the same thing, and the preflight/execute separation is clearly delineated.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes bare nouns (auth, billing, vault), prefixed subject-verb pairs (capabilities_execute, skills_feedback), and the outlier 'loadout_bug_submit' with inconsistent pluralization (capabilities vs skills vs loadout). Although all tokens are lowercase and underscore-separated, there is no single predictable pattern, and some tools (e.g., 'billing') are action containers while others are single-action functions.

Tool Count5/5

Thirteen tools is well within the ideal 3–15 range, and each tool serves a clearly separable domain (authentication, billing, capabilities, skills, vault, audit, feedback, bug reporting). No tool feels redundant, and the count is appropriate for the breadth of functionality offered.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the full lifecycle for capabilities (search/get/preflight/execute/feedback) and handles account, billing, vault, audit, and support needs. The only gap is lack of a general skill search or listing capability—skills can only be read by exact canonical identity, which may impede discovery—but core workflows are otherwise complete.

Resources

Need Help?