godly_taxonomyLists category post counts and existing tags grouped by type, optionally for one feed, to filter searches and browsing in the design reference gallery.
Lista as categorias (com quantos posts) e as tags existentes agrupadas por tipo (color, style, interaction, type, framework, component...), pra usar como filtro em godly_search e godly_browse.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feed | No | Restringe as tags às do feed |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the return content: categories with post counts and tags grouped by type. 'Lista' implies a non-mutating read, though it never says so outright, and there is no mention of caching or whether the tag list is exhaustive (the trailing '...' leaves that open).
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the downstream purpose at the end where it belongs. The open-ended 'component...' enumeration is the only soft spot, slightly blurring whether the listed types are complete.
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 single optional-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers both what comes back and what to do with it. It leaves the feed-scoping behavior unexplained, which matters given the one parameter it accepts.
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% and the single 'feed' parameter is an enum with its own description, so the schema already does the work. The description adds no information about the feed filter, only about the tag-type grouping, so 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 ('Lista as categorias ... e as tags') plus the exact shape of the payload (categories with post counts, tags grouped by type). The named tag-type examples (color, style, interaction, framework, component) make it unmistakable against siblings like godly_search and godly_browse.
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?
Explicitly positions the tool as a precursor: the values returned are 'pra usar como filtro em godly_search e godly_browse'. That tells an agent when to call it instead of the search tools. It stops short of stating exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. whether the taxonomy is static or feed-dependent).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.