capability_manifestReturn the current machine capability manifest generated from the running Flask route table. This is the canonical product-inventory authority for MCP discovery.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that the manifest is dynamically generated from the Flask route table and is the canonical authority, but it does not disclose return format, structure, or content details, which would add further behavioral transparency.
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?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action and resource are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence establishes the tool's authoritative role without wasting words.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only manifest tool, the description provides enough to invoke the tool correctly and understand its purpose. However, since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the manifest's shape or contents would make the tool fully self-explanatory, and the sibling differentiation could be more explicit.
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?
There are no parameters, and the input schema is an empty object with 100% schema description coverage. With zero parameters, the description does not need to explain parameter semantics; the baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing to define.
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 description uses a specific verb ('Return') with a clearly identified resource ('current machine capability manifest') and even names its source ('running Flask route table'). The phrase 'canonical product-inventory authority for MCP discovery' helps distinguish it from sibling tools like discover_capabilities and inspect_capability by positioning it as the authoritative manifest source.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool: when one needs the current, authoritative capability manifest for MCP discovery. It does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance, but the context is clear enough for a zero-parameter read-only operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clear boundaries: discover searches, inspect examines one, compare contrasts, recommend interprets natural language, and call executes. Some ambiguity exists between capability_manifest and discover_capabilities for inventory listing, and recommend_capability could be confused with discover_capabilities, but descriptions generally prevent misselection.
All names are lowercase snake_case, and the core capability operations follow a verb_noun pattern. The noun-led capability_manifest, system_status, and x402_* resources deviate from that pattern, and capability names mix singular and plural, but the naming remains readable and internally consistent per subdomain.
Ten tools is well within the ideal range and each tool maps to a distinct part of the capability discovery, comparison, payment, and execution workflow. There are no obviously redundant or throwaway tools, so the count feels appropriately scoped.
The set covers the full read-only market-intelligence lifecycle: inventory, search, inspect, compare, recommend, call, payment readiness, contract lookup, and settlement evidence. Operator CRUD is explicitly outside scope, so there are no meaningful dead ends for an agent using this surface.