Retrieve test-case categories for a product by filtering with a product ID. Organize test cases into logical groups or sections.
List test-case categories for a product (closest thing to TestRail sections). Typical filter: {"product": }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Kiwi ORM filter dict, e.g. {"name": "My Product"} or {"product_id": 3}. Omit or pass {} to list everything. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the typical filter communicates scope, but the description does not mention return behavior, pagination, error conditions, or explicitly confirm no side effects.
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 two short sentences with the main action front-loaded. The TestRail analogy earns its place by orienting the agent, and the typical filter example is directly actionable.
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 simple list tool with one optional query parameter and no output schema, the description plus schema cover what an agent needs to call it. The main small gap is that the description does not explicitly state that omitting query lists all categories, though the schema does.
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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds a realistic typical filter and domain context. The example uses 'product' while the schema example uses 'product_id', which adds a small semantic ambiguity, but the ORM filter dict behavior is already well documented in the schema.
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 ('List') and resource ('test-case categories for a product'), and the parenthetical 'closest thing to TestRail sections' gives helpful domain context. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with them, but the entity is distinct enough among the many kiwi_get_* siblings.
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 'Typical filter: {"product": <product_id>}' example implies the main use case: fetching categories filtered by product. There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, so usage guidance stays at the implied level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.