Fetch the complete list of shift categories from When2Work to identify available scheduling options.
Get all shift categories from When2Work
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": "w2w_get_categories"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the scope ("all shift categories") and read-only nature, but doesn't discuss return format, auth requirements, or pagination behavior. Adequate for a simple parameterless list tool but not detailed.
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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the action and resource. No fluff.
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 simple nature (no parameters, no output schema), the description provides the essential purpose. It could mention what a "shift category" includes or the response format, but it's sufficient for basic selection.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is already at 100% coverage (an empty object). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so the baseline score of 4 applies.
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 ("Get") and resource ("shift categories") and names the source system ("When2Work"). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like w2w_get_employees by naming a distinct entity.
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 explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives is provided. The purpose is specific enough to imply its use case, but it doesn't mention exclusions or how it differs from sibling getters beyond the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.