get_capabilitiesReturn current public boundaries and, when authenticated, workspace-specific tool reachability, scopes, and role requirements.
| 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 mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description is not burdened with repeating those. It adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the authentication-dependent behavior: public boundaries are always returned, while workspace-specific details appear only when authenticated.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence front-loads the main purpose ('Return current public boundaries') and then appends the conditional authenticated portion. No filler or repetition of annotation metadata.
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 no-parameter, read-only introspection tool, the description covers the essential information: what is returned and how it varies by authentication state. There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the returned categories well enough for an agent to know what to expect. Minor ambiguity around the exact meaning of 'public boundaries' prevents a 5.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter documentation duty. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on output semantics rather than parameters.
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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('capabilities'), and details exactly what is returned: public boundaries plus, when authenticated, workspace-specific tool reachability, scopes, and role requirements. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that operate on assessments, assets, findings, or workspaces.
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve current public boundaries and, after authentication, workspace-specific permissions and reachability. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the unique purpose makes the usage scenario apparent.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource-action pair: get/list/search for CVE records, begin/check for domain authorization, prepare/launch/cancel for assessment lifecycle, and get/list for assets, findings, and reports. There is no meaningful overlap that would confuse an agent selecting a tool.
All tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern, such as list_assessments, get_finding, launch_assessment, and search_public_cve_records. Naming conventions are uniform across the entire set, making tool behavior predictable.
With 22 tools, the server is on the heavier side and falls into the borderline range for tool count. The tools are individually justified by a broad domain, but the surface area is larger than a typical focused server needs.
The core assessment lifecycle is well covered: domain authorization can be created and checked, assessments can be prepared, launched, cancelled, and retrieved, and findings/reports/assets have read and list support. Minor gaps exist around explicit authorization removal or workspace switching, but these do not block the primary workflow.