list_categoriesFetch Helpjuice knowledge base categories with IDs, names, parent relationships, visibility, and article counts to organize or audit content structure.
List knowledge base categories (id, name, parent, visibility, article counts).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | No | Language code |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned field set, but is silent on whether results are flat or hierarchical, whether uncategorized/private categories appear, and whether the list is paginated — meaningful gaps for a listing call whose shape depends on hierarchy.
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, and the parenthetical return-field list is dense with useful information. No filler or redundancy.
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 read-only listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, listing the returned fields is the right kind of compensating detail. Minor gaps remain around hierarchy representation and language behavior, but nothing essential to invoking it is missing.
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 coverage is 100% with a single optional parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not mention the language filter at all, so it adds nothing beyond the schema's 'Language code' text.
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 (List) and resource (knowledge base categories) and enumerates the returned fields, which makes it clearly distinct from the singular sibling get_category. It does not explicitly name siblings, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.
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: an agent can infer this is the bulk-retrieval option versus get_category, but the description never says when to prefer this over search_knowledge_base or how the optional language parameter changes results. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.