Returns the subgroups of a specified group within a parts catalogue, with optional language localization for subgroup descriptions.
List the subgroups of a group in a catalogue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language for descriptions: ISO code (ja, en, it, de, ...) or ePER code. Default ja; falls back to English. | |
| group | Yes | ||
| 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 behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about read-only safety, whether results are recursive or single-level, pagination, or what happens for a leaf group. Only the bare operation is disclosed.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than crispness.
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 hierarchy-listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least clarify nesting depth and result shape. As written, an agent cannot tell whether subgroups are returned flat or as a tree, or how to continue traversal.
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 description coverage is 67%, so the schema already documents the catalogue and lang parameters reasonably well. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, and the required 'group' parameter has no description at all in either place.
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 and resource ('List the subgroups of a group in a catalogue'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling list_groups or explains how the two relate in the hierarchy.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer list_groups or list_tables, and no stated prerequisites such as needing a catalogue code first. The agent must infer the hierarchy traversal from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.