mcp-server

get_category_mapping

Read-only

Get the current category-mapping rules for a taxonomy (store categories → marketplace/taxonomy categories). The rule set is SHARED per project + taxonomy_code + locale (every feed on that taxonomy sees it). Address the taxonomy either by feed_id (its taxonomy is used) OR explicitly by taxonomy_code (+ optional taxonomy_locale). Returns {taxonomyCode, taxonomyLocale, rules:[{type, operator, storeCategoryIds, storeCategoryPaths, attribute, value, targetHash, targetPath}], total}. Use list_unmapped_categories to find gaps, search_target_categories to find a target, and set_category_mapping to fill them. project_id is OPTIONAL (inferred for a single-project customer).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`feed_id`	No
`project_id`	No
`taxonomy_code`	No	Target taxonomy id (e.g. 'google'); alternative to feed_id for addressing the taxonomy.
`taxonomy_locale`	No	Locale of the taxonomy tree, e.g. 'en_GB' — defaults to the taxonomy's own default when omitted.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: the rule set is SHARED per project + taxonomy_code + locale, which affects how results should be interpreted. It also discloses the optional/inferred nature of project_id. 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?

Six sentences, each adding unique value: core purpose, shared semantics, addressing modes, return shape, sibling routing, and optional parameter. Front-loaded with the purpose, no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description includes the return shape inline. It covers sharing semantics, addressing modes, sibling tools, and optional parameters. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on what happens when both feed_id and taxonomy_code are sent together, but this is an edge case for a read-only tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 50% (taxonomy_code and taxonomy_locale are documented). The description compensates by explaining that feed_id selects the taxonomy via a feed, and that project_id is optional/inferred. It clarifies the relationship between parameters, though it doesn't state precedence if both feed_id and taxonomy_code are provided.

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 says 'Get the current category-mapping rules for a taxonomy' with an explicit mapping direction ('store categories → marketplace/taxonomy categories'), which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_category_mapping by naming them in the description.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states when to use alternatives: 'Use list_unmapped_categories to find gaps, search_target_categories to find a target, and set_category_mapping to fill them.' It also clarifies the two valid addressing modes (feed_id or taxonomy_code) and notes project_id is optional/inferred.

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

All mcp-server 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

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are organized around distinct resources (ads, marketplaces, feeds, orders, rules, sources) with clear action verbs, and descriptions explicitly disambiguate near-pairs like get_feed_status vs ad_status or set_feed_filter vs set_feed_attribute_filter. A few similarly named status/action pairs (e.g. ad_status vs get_ad, run_ad_item_action vs run_ad_operation) require careful reading, but overall the purposes are separable.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (list_*, get_*, create_*, set_*, run_*, test_*). Minor deviations like ad_status and marketplace_status (noun-based status tools) and koongo_knowledge break the pattern slightly, but the convention is clearly recognizable and predictable.

Tool Count1/5

At 105 tools, the surface is extreme and far beyond the 50+ threshold, even for a complex e-commerce integration domain. Much of the bloat comes from systematic triplication across ads, marketplaces, and feeds (e.g. three nearly identical map_*_attribute tools, three list_*_items, three get_*_report) that a generic resource parameter could have consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the full lifecycle of feeds, ads, marketplaces, order connections, rules, and imports, including create/read/update/delete, status monitoring, item-level actions, validation, repair, and restore. Minor gaps exist, such as no delete for standalone order connections and limited update capabilities for some entities, but these are workable and do not create dead ends for the core workflows.

Resources

Need Help?