Navigate the OAG code hierarchy to explore object type classifications for Swiss public tenders. Start from root categories or drill down by parent code.
Browse the OAG code hierarchy (object type classification)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Display language | en |
| parentCode | No | Parent OAG 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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read-like action ('browse') but does not explicitly say it is read-only, describe the response structure, or disclose any side effects or access requirements. The description adds no behavior beyond the name and a vague classification hint.
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 front-loads the core purpose. It is efficient and avoids extraneous detail, though it lacks any structural elements like examples or a note about return format that could aid comprehension without adding bulk.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only context. It fails to explain the return format (e.g., a list of child OAG codes with labels), how this tree relates to sibling trees (CPV, BKP, NPK), or any specifics about hierarchical navigation. An agent would need to infer most behavior from the parameter names and the parenthetical classification hint.
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 both 'lang' and 'parentCode' having descriptions. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents parameter behavior (e.g., parentCode omission shows root categories). No additional value is provided by the description.
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 states the verb 'browse' and the resource 'OAG code hierarchy' with a clarifying parenthetical about object type classification. It clearly identifies the tool's purpose but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling browse tools (e.g., browse_cpv_tree) or search_oag_codes, which are distinct in behavior.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that browsing is appropriate for hierarchical exploration while search_oag_codes is for finding specific codes, nor does it note any exclusions or preconditions. The usage context is entirely implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.