List product classifications and their IDs. Filter by name or product ID to locate specific classifications for test management workflows.
List product classifications with their ids.
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'List' clearly implies a read-only operation and the mention of IDs gives some output expectation, but the description does not disclose filtering behavior, pagination, permissions, or other side effects. The input schema covers the query parameter, but the tool description itself adds only minimal behavioral context.
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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the core meaning.
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 operation with a well-documented optional query parameter, the basic call is understandable. However, the description lacks usage guidance relative to sibling tools and provides no output schema or pagination/limit details. It is minimally adequate but leaves contextual gaps.
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 has 100% coverage for the single optional 'query' parameter, including an example and note that omitting it lists everything. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('product classifications'), and mentions that IDs are included in the output. This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from the many sibling getter tools such as kiwi_get_categories or kiwi_get_components.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the many sibling getter tools. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned, so an agent must infer usage from the name and general pattern rather than from explicit instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.