Retrieve SHEIN subcategory navigation tabs by numeric cat_id, including each tab's nav_id, nav_name, nav_type, nav_img, and representative goods_id.
SHEIN category nav tabs. Returns the subcategory navigation tabs for a SHEIN category, by the required numeric cat_id. Each tab has its nav_id, nav_name, nav_type, nav_img and the goods_id of a representative product.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cat_id | Yes | Numeric SHEIN category id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully enumerates the return shape (nav_id, nav_name, nav_type, nav_img, goods_id), which compensates somewhat, but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is purely read-only.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the return fields follow, so nothing needs to be re-read.
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 one-parameter, read-style tool with no output schema, the description is nearly self-sufficient: it covers the input contract and the full set of returned fields. The only gap is the absence of any sibling-routing or usage context.
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 description coverage is 100% with a single parameter, so the schema already documents cat_id. The description only reiterates that the id is required and numeric, adding no syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond the schema. 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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the subcategory navigation tabs for a SHEIN category'. This is clear and actionable, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like shein_category_filters or shein_category_goods, which an agent must infer from the name alone.
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?
No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. The description notes that cat_id is required, but with four sibling shein_category_* tools an agent gets no routing help for choosing this one over the others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.