Retrieve all product categories from inFlow Inventory, with options to sort, paginate, and include related parent, subcategory, or count data.
List all product categories
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | ||
| sort | No | Property to sort by (e.g., name) | |
| count | No | ||
| include | No | Related data to include (e.g., parentCategory, subCategories) | |
| sortDesc | No | Sort in descending order | |
| includeCount | No | Include total record count in response |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0-alpha.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'List all' but supports skip/count pagination and include parameters, contradicting a naive 'all' interpretation. No mention of pagination defaults, return shape, or read-only nature.
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 a clear verb and object. It is concise, though arguably too terse given the tool's pagination and include capabilities.
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 list tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It should clarify pagination behavior, the include options, and how categories relate to sibling resources like product groups.
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% with 6 parameters. The description adds nothing about parameters, but the schema documents sort, include, sortDesc, and includeCount adequately. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the work.
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?
Clear verb+resource ('List all product categories'). It states scope as 'all', but does not differentiate from the many sibling list_* tools (list_products, list_product_groups) or clarify the distinction between categories and product groups. Still, the resource 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?
No guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. With dozens of sibling list_* tools, an agent cannot know whether categories differ from product groups. No exclusions, no prerequisites, no conditions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.