run_hepsiburada_categoriesGet the Hepsiburada category tree for a category id or URL: the path from the top-level department down to the category, with its nested children (id, name, alias, level, url). Flat 5 points per successful run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | Yes | Category ID or URL. e.g. 371965 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds the returned tree structure and field list plus pricing ('Flat 5 points per successful run'). It omits any note on depth limits or rate limits, but the cost/return disclosure is real added value.
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?
One front-loaded sentence that covers input, output shape, and cost with little waste. The trailing pricing clause is useful but slightly tacked on; overall tight and readable.
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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is fetched and its structure. It could better explain how an agent obtains a valid category id/URL, but nothing critical for calling it correctly is missing.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'category' parameter is fully documented with an example (371965). The description only restates 'category id or URL', which the schema already conveys, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource ('Get the Hepsiburada category tree') and even describes the return shape (path from top-level department down to the category with nested children). An agent can distinguish this category-tree tool from the many run_hepsiburada_products*/merchants siblings.
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?
It states the input ('for a category id or URL') but gives no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and does not point to a sibling (e.g. using this to obtain a category id before calling run_hepsiburada_products_search). Usage is only implied by the inputs.
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.