Lists the Atlas transaction history category tree with id, name, and parentId, providing the available filters for querying transaction data.
get_transactions filtresi olarak kullanılabilecek Atlas işlem geçmişi kategori ağacını (id, name, parentId) listeler.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the returned structure includes id/name/parentId, and the data represents a category hierarchy for filtering transaction history.
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 entire description is one compact sentence that states the resource, its purpose, and its fields without repetition or filler. Every part contributes to an agent's understanding of what the tool returns and why it exists.
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 parameterless, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the data source (Atlas transaction history), the domain (category tree), the fields (id, name, parentId), and the intended usage (get_transactions filter). Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?
The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The baseline for a parameterless tool is therefore appropriate, and the description adds all relevant semantic information about the result.
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 ('listeler') and resource (Atlas transaction history category tree) and identifies the exact fields returned (id, name, parentId). It clearly separates this tool from get_transactions by positioning it as the filter taxonomy for that sibling.
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 description explicitly says the tree is intended as a filter for get_transactions, giving a clear use context. It does not mention exclusion cases or alternative tools, but with zero parameters and a specialized purpose, this is sufficient guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.