Browse social marketing categories to see service counts, which services meet minimum-quantity cost caps, minimum price per 1,000, and a free example service.
Topics of the social marketing catalogue: per category the number of services, how many meet the minimum-quantity cost cap (not order-type support), the cheapest price per 1000 and an example service (free) (free)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does describe the shape of the returned data, which is valuable since there is no output schema. However, it never states that this is a read-only/free lookup versus a mutating call, gives no pagination or rate-limit context, and the parenthetical '(not order-type support)' plus the duplicated '(free) (free)' are ambiguous enough to obscure meaning.
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?
It is a single sentence, but a run-on one cluttered with parentheticals and a literally repeated '(free) (free)' that reads as an editing artifact. The information is roughly front-loaded but not cleanly structured or free of redundancy.
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 zero-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema catalogue tool, the description covers what data comes back but omits the read-only/free nature and any routing to the related smm_* tools an agent would need to act on a category. It is adequate but leaves real gaps for the agent's next step.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent arguments for a parameterless listing call.
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 names the resource (SMM catalogue categories/topics) and enumerates the per-category fields returned (service count, min-quantity cap count, cheapest price per 1000, example service), so an agent can tell it is a category-overview listing. It lacks a clear verb and never contrasts itself with sibling tools like smm_services, so it is clear but undifferentiated.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as smm_services or smm_service_details. An agent must infer that this is the catalogue entry point purely from the sibling naming.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.