Explore the CPV code hierarchy by selecting a parent code to view its subcategories, aiding tender classification and search.
Browse the CPV code hierarchy (shows subcategories of a parent code)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Display language | en |
| parentCode | No | Parent code (8 digits). If omitted, shows root categories |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention any side effects, errors, or limitations. The minimal text leaves the agent uncertain about behavioral guarantees.
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 a single, concise sentence that effectively summarizes the tool's purpose without unnecessary detail or 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?
The description lacks context on output format, pagination, or any interaction with sibling tools. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the minimal description leaves out important information for an agent to use the tool effectively.
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 schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (lang and parentCode), including the default and optional behavior. However, the tool description itself adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it receives the baseline score.
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 clearly states the tool browses the CPV code hierarchy and shows subcategories of a parent code. It distinguishes itself from other browse tools (OAG, BKP, NPK) by specifying CPV, but does not explicitly differentiate from search_cpv_codes.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_cpv_codes or browse_oag_tree. It also does not mention the optional parentCode parameter or root-category behavior, leaving usage decisions to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.