Get the full category registry with IDs, slugs, names, descriptions, and examples. No authentication required. Use category IDs when creating units/requests.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as readOnly, idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds value beyond those by disclosing 'No authentication required,' which is a behavioral trait not present in the annotations. It also describes the data fields returned. There is no contradiction or missing critical behavioral context.
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?
The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core function and expected output, the second gives actionable usage guidance and an access note. Every sentence earns its place, and the text is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
Without an output schema, the description compensates by explicitly listing the data fields (IDs, slugs, names, descriptions, examples). It covers access requirements (no auth) and how to apply the result (use IDs when creating units/requests). For a parameterless read-only getter, this is complete.
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 has 0 parameters, and the schema is an empty object, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. Per the guidelines, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-level detail because there are none, but it does explain the purpose of the returned data, which is sufficient for this tool.
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 starts with 'Get the full category registry', a specific verb+resource combination that clearly states what the tool does. It also enumerates the contents (IDs, slugs, names, descriptions, examples), which further clarifies the purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like fabric_get_meta or fabric_get_regions.
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 provides clear usage context: 'Use category IDs when creating units/requests.' This tells the agent when to use the tool's output. It also notes 'No authentication required,' which sets expectations. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.
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.
All 7 tools have clearly distinct purposes: identity creation, metadata retrieval, category/region discovery, session management, and two-step recovery. No overlap.
Every tool follows the 'fabric_<verb>_<noun>' pattern with consistent snake_case. Verbs are descriptive (create, get, login, recovery_start, recovery_complete) making the convention predictable.
7 tools cover essential identity lifecycle steps (creation, session, recovery) and discovery (categories, regions, meta). This is well-scoped for the domain without bloat.
Core creation and discovery tools exist, but missing configuration updates (e.g., webhook URL, recovery key setup) and identity deletion. The recovery flow is complete, but post-creation setup must be done manually or via other means.