getCustomCategoriesRetrieve all user-defined custom categories for income, expense, or investment transaction types to organize and manage financial records.
Retrieve all custom categories created by the user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | Type of transaction |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.8Input schema / descriptionRemoved value: -"The transaction type to filter categories by"v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as pagination, return format, or the fact that results are filtered by the 'type' parameter. It does not contradict annotations, but provides minimal added value beyond them.
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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately short for a simple retrieval tool, though it could have added a note about the filtering requirement without losing conciseness.
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?
The tool is simple with one required parameter, and the schema covers the parameter well. However, there is no output schema and the description does not clarify the return structure or the fact that 'all' is constrained by the 'type' filter. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent.
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 has 100% description coverage for the only parameter, 'type', with an enum and a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'all custom categories' with a user scope, making the core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate this from the sibling getCategoriesByType, and the phrase 'all' is slightly inconsistent with the required 'type' parameter that filters by transaction type.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus getCategoriesByType or other sibling tools. The description does not mention any exclusion conditions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer which tool fits the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.