Lists the main groups (engine, brakes, body, etc.) of an ePER catalogue using its catalogue code, with optional language selection for descriptions.
List the main groups of a catalogue (engine, brakes, body, ...).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language for descriptions: ISO code (ja, en, it, de, ...) or ePER code. Default ja; falls back to English. | |
| catalogue | Yes | Catalogue code (CAT_COD), e.g. "PK". Get it from decode_vin or list_catalogues. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description does not state whether the result is paginated, requires specific permissions, or has any other behavioral constraints, leaving meaningful gaps for an unannotated tool.
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 efficient sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. The parenthetical examples add useful concreteness without any wasted wording.
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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate: it states what is listed and gives examples. However, it omits return-shape context, pagination behavior, and differentiation from the closely related list_subgroups tool.
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%, and both parameters are fully documented in the input schema, including the catalogue code and language fallback. The description adds only the examples of groups, not additional parameter semantics, so baseline 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 gives a clear verb and resource: it lists the main groups of a catalogue, and parenthetical examples (engine, brakes, body) make the content concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool list_subgroups, but the core operation is unambiguous.
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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as list_subgroups, list_tables, or list_catalogues. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or routing cues beyond the implicit meaning of 'main groups'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.