Retrieve the full list of forum categories with each category's topic count and post count to get an overview of activity by section.
列出所有板块/类别，含每个类别的话题数(topic_count)与帖子数(post_count)。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output content (all categories with topic_count and post_count) and implies a read-only listing, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, or any other behavioral caveats. For a zero-parameter list operation this is adequate but not rich.
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 front-loads the primary action and resource, then adds the return-relevant counts. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description is nearly complete: it states the scope ('all categories') and the notable fields in the result. The lack of an output schema is not a serious gap given the simplicity, though ordering or pagination details would make it fully complete.
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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.
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 uses a specific verb ('列出' / list) with a clear resource ('所有板块/类别' / all categories) and names the key included fields (topic_count and post_count). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like category_topics, which operate on topics within a category rather than listing categories themselves.
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 use case is implied: call this when you need all categories with their counts. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool should be chosen instead, such as category_topics for topics inside a category.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.