MCP-ADAPTER

list_categories

Lists catalog categories and tool counts for a specified application, such as matlab or vivado, helping you browse available tools before searching.

Instructions

List the catalog categories (with tool counts) for one application, e.g. 'matlab' or 'vivado'.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "software": "<software>"
    },
    "name": "list_categories"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`software`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the return content (categories with tool counts) and implies a read-only lookup, but says nothing about ordering, error behavior for unknown applications, or whether it needs the tool set to be installed first. For a low-risk read this is adequate but not rich.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, scope, and return enrichment, followed by two inline examples. No filler, nothing deferred.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description still adds the useful 'with tool counts' detail plus parameter examples. The residual gap is the lack of validation/format guidance for the software parameter.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'software' parameter, so the description must compensate. It partially does so by giving concrete example values ('matlab', 'vivado'), which conveys the expected identifier style, but does not state case sensitivity, accepted names, or whether arbitrary application strings work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb (List) and resource (catalog categories), and adds scope details: it is scoped to one application and returns categories annotated with tool counts. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from list_software or software_overview, but the purpose is unambiguous on its own.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied by the example application names ('matlab', 'vivado'); there is no 'use this when...' framing, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as software_overview or list_software. An agent can infer the call, but nothing steers it between siblings.

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