Browse Zola registry products by category ID to locate available items scoped to your registry.
Browse Zola products in a category, scoped to your registry. Category IDs are Zola constants (e.g. 544 = Kitchen) — exposed via GET /v3/categories in the iOS app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Default 50 | |
| offset | No | Default 0 | |
| category_id | Yes | Zola product category ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Consistent with the readOnlyHint=true annotation; 'browse' describes a safe read operation. The description adds useful context beyond the annotation: results are scoped to the user's registry and category IDs are fixed Zola constants, not arbitrary product taxonomy values.
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?
Two sentences with no filler: the core purpose is front-loaded and the category-ID provenance earns the second sentence.
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 low-complexity read tool with only one required parameter and a readOnly annotation, the description covers purpose, scope, and parameter provenance. It stops short of 5 only because, with no output schema present, the return shape is never stated — though that's a minor gap for a browse operation.
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% (all three params documented), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value above baseline by grounding category_id with a concrete example (544 = Kitchen) and pointing to the source endpoint GET /v3/categories, which helps the agent supply a valid value.
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 a specific resource (Zola registry products within a category) and the operation (browse), which distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_vendors, search_storefronts, and search_themes. It stops short of 5 because the verb 'browse' is slightly imprecise about operation semantics and it doesn't state what the result set is.
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 registry-scoped, category-filtered nature of the operation implies when it should be used, and the sibling list confirms it targets a different domain than search_vendors/storefronts/themes. However, there is no explicit when/when-not statement or named alternative, so the agent must infer selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.