Browse the standardized NPK positions catalog to find codes for Swiss public tenders. Navigate by parent code and language to locate relevant categories.
Browse the NPK code hierarchy (standardized positions catalog)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Display language | en |
| parentCode | No | Parent NPK code. 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?
No annotations are present, and the description does not explicitly state that browsing is a read-only operation. While 'browse' implies non-destructive behavior, the lack of explicit disclosure reduces transparency.
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, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous details. It is concise and well-structured.
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?
Given sibling tools like search_npk_codes and browse_cpv_tree, the description provides enough context for basic differentiation but lacks explicit details about the hierarchy structure or when browsing is preferred over searching. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
Both parameters have descriptions in the schema: lang indicates display language and parentCode explains hierarchy navigation with default behavior. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies, though descriptions are minimal.
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 verb 'browse' and object 'NPK code hierarchy' clearly state the tool's function. It distinguishes from search_npk_codes by implying tree navigation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other browse_* siblings.
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 guidance on when to use this browse tool versus the search_npk_codes or other browse_* tools. The description leaves the choice to the agent without contextual cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.