Fetch available categories and subcategories for reporting street incidents in Valencia, including TCOM codes required to create new notices.
Categorías y subcategorías de avisos (cada una trae su código TCOM-xxx para crear).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that returned items include TCOM-xxx codes, which is useful output context, but says nothing about permissions, read-only nature, pagination, or ordering. For a listing tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves important behavioral traits unspecified.
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?
A single compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource being listed. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool. The parenthetical is dense but earns its place by explaining an important output detail.
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 the high simplicity (one optional param, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the resource and the TCOM code output, but omits the lang parameter, return structure, and usage relative to siblings. Enough to call the tool, but not 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 only parameter is lang (enum es/va) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions language selection or what the parameter controls. The enum values are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 names the exact resource (categorías y subcategorías de avisos) and notes that each item includes a TCOM-xxx code for creation. It distinguishes itself from get_category by being plural and from create_aviso by emphasizing the code needed to create. It is clear but does not explicitly state that it returns a list, though the tool name and context make that unambiguous.
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?
Usage is only implied: the parenthetical 'para crear' signals it should be called before creating an aviso, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives such as get_category or suggest_categories. An agent can infer the purpose but receives no routing instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.