diff --git a/proposals/1753-capabilities.md b/proposals/1753-capabilities.md
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..ec5169ab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/proposals/1753-capabilities.md
@@ -0,0 +1,117 @@
+# MSC1753: client-server capabilities API
+
+A mechanism is needed for clients to interrogate servers to establish whether
+particular operations can be performed.
+
+For example, users may not be able to change their password if a server is
+configured to authenticate against a separate system, in which case it is
+nonsensical to offer the user such an option.
+
+## Proposal
+
+### `GET /_matrix/client/r0/capabilities`
+
+We will add a new endpoint to the client-server API: `GET
+/_matrix/client/r0/capabilities`. The endpoint will be authenticated as normal
+via an access token.
+
+The server should reply with a list of supported features, as shown:
+
+```json
+{
+    "capabilities": {
+        "m.capability_one": {}
+    }
+}
+```
+
+The keys of the `capabilities` object are capability identifiers. As with
+other identifiers in the Matrix protocol, the `m.` prefix is reserved for
+definition in the Matrix specification; other values can be used within an
+organisation following the Java package naming conventions.
+
+The values of the `capabilities` object will depend on the capability
+identifier, though in general the empty object will suffice.
+
+### Initial capability identifiers
+
+As a starting point, a single capability identifier is proposed:
+`m.change_password`, which should be considered supported if it is possible to
+change the user's password via the `POST /_matrix/client/r0/account/password`
+API.
+
+The value of the `capabilities` object in the response should be the empty
+object.
+
+### Fallback behaviour
+
+Clients will need to be aware of servers which do not support the new endpoint,
+and fall back to their current behaviour if they receive a 404 response.
+
+### Suitable applications
+
+In general, capabilities advertised via this endpoint should depend in some way
+on the state of the user or server - in other words, they will be inherently
+"optional" features in the API.
+
+This endpoint should *not* be used to advertise support for experimental or
+unstable features, which is better done via `/client/versions` (see
+[MSC1497](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/issues/1497)).
+
+Examples of features which might reasonably be advertised here include:
+
+ * Whether the server supports user presence.
+
+ * Whether the server supports other optional features. The following could be
+   made optional via this mechanism:
+   * Room directory
+   * URL previews
+
+ * Policy restricitions, such as:
+   * Whether certain types of content are permitted on this server.
+   * The number of rooms you are allowed in.
+   * Configured ratelimits.
+
+Features which might be better advertised elsewhere include:
+
+ * Support for e2e key backups
+   ([MSC1219](https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-doc/issues/1219)) - list in
+   `/client/versions`.
+
+ * Support for lazy-loading of room members - list in `/client/versions`.
+
+ * Media size limits - list in `/media/r0/config`, because the media server may
+   be a separate process.
+
+ * Optional transports/encodings for the CS API - probably better handled via
+   HTTP headers etc.
+
+ * Variations in room state resolution - this is implied via the room version
+   (which is in the `m.room.create` event).
+
+## Tradeoffs
+
+One alternative would be to provide specific ways of establishing support for
+each operation: for example, a client might send an `GET
+/_matrix/client/r0/account/password` request to see if the user can change
+their password. The concern with this approach is that this could require a
+large number of requests to establish which entries should appear on a menu or
+dialog box.
+
+Another alternative is to provide a generic query mechanism where the client
+can query for specific capabilities it is interested in. However, this adds
+complication and makes it harder to discover capability identifiers.
+
+## Potential issues
+
+None yet identified.
+
+## Security considerations
+
+None yet identified.
+
+## Conclusion
+
+We propose adding a new endpoint to the Client-Server API, which will allow
+clients to query for supported operations so that they can decide whether to
+expose them in their user-interface.