list_categoriesRetrieve the enclosure category tree with counts of enclosures per category to identify available product groups and navigate enclosure families.
The enclosure category tree with the number of enclosures in each category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| categories | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety and determinism are covered structurally. The description adds only that counts are aggregated per category; it does not disclose whether the tree is nested vs flat, whether empty categories are included, or whether ordering is stable. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, this is an acceptable but thin addition.
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 short sentence with the key information (tree + per-category counts) front-loaded and no filler. Minor deduction because it is a verbless fragment, which reads more like a field label than a tool description and slightly weakens the action framing.
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 no-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema that documents the return shape, the description covers what the agent needs to select it. The main remaining gap is context about how this fits into the wider enclosure workflow, which is modest given the tool's simplicity.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly does not invent parameters or filtering options that the schema does not support.
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 names the specific resource (the enclosure category tree) and adds the distinguishing payload (enclosure counts per category), which no sibling tool (get_enclosure, search_enclosures, filter_enclosures, compare_enclosures) covers. It is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, but the retrieval intent is unambiguous given the name list_categories.
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 prerequisites, and no reference to any sibling tool. The agent must infer that this is the discovery/browsing entry point for the category taxonomy rather than, say, a filtered enumeration. Nothing states whether it should be called before search_enclosures or filter_enclosures to obtain valid category identifiers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.