get_page_categoriesRetrieve category assignments for any One Piece article to identify a character's crews, Devil Fruit type, species, Haki, or other classifications.
Categories an article belongs to: a quick way to see a character's crews, Devil Fruit type, species, Haki and more.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Article title, e.g. 'Roronoa Zoro'. Redirects such as 'Zoro' are followed. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds little beyond the basic action—it doesn't discuss redirect handling, pagination, or output format. With annotations covering the main traits, the description provides marginal extra value, warranting a baseline score.
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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states what the tool does and gives a concrete example of its use. There is no wasted words, and the key information is presented first. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.
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 read-only tool with one well-documented parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate. It explains the value proposition (quick view of categories) without needing to detail output format since no output schema exists. Minor gaps like explicit mention of redirects are already handled in the schema, making it complete enough.
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 input schema fully documents the single 'title' parameter with an example and redirect behavior, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any parameter-specific detail, so it relies entirely on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.
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 clearly states the tool lists an article's categories, with a specific example of what those categories reveal (crews, Devil Fruit type, etc.). It is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_category_members, though it doesn't name them explicitly. The title and description together make the purpose 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 implies usage context ('a quick way to see a character's...'), suggesting it's for lightweight category exploration. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_infobox or get_category_members, nor does it state any exclusions. Usage guidance is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.