Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rangeview-mcp

rangeview-mcp

by IamMichael23
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Browse categories

list_categories

List top-level categories from a 376-category tree, descend into subcategories with a parent parameter, or search for a category by name fragment.

Instructions

Browse the 376-category tree. No arguments lists top-level categories (Firearms, Ammo, Optics…); pass parent to descend or search to find one anywhere.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_categories"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax categories to return (default 40)
parentNoParent category name, slug, or id
searchNoFind categories by name fragment

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the number of categories (376), tree structure, and argument effects. Missing details like read-only nature, auth needs, or pagination, but covers core behavior adequately.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences. First sentence sets scope (376-category tree), second explains argument usage. No redundancy, front-loaded with key info. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, but description doesn't explain return format. However, for a category browser, the return is likely intuitive. Given the tool's simplicity and good annotations coverage (though absent), it is complete enough for typical use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining parent 'descends' and search 'finds one anywhere', and mentions default limit of 40 (schema also says default 40). This context aids agent in understanding parameter purpose.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool browses a category tree and specifies behavior with no arguments (top-level) vs parent or search arguments. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_products which target products, not categories.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains how to use the tool: no arguments for top-level, parent to descend, search to find. It implicitly covers when to use it (for categories) but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives. However, sibling tools provide enough context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools