Fetches category details or its available attributes and requirements using a category ID for accurate listing management.
Consulta una categoría o sus atributos disponibles y requisitos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| attributes | No | ||
| category_id | 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=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds almost nothing beyond that: it implies two response modes (category data vs. attributes/requirements) without clarifying behavior, error cases, or that results are public catalog data.
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 no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The most decision-relevant fact, the attributes toggle, is absent rather than front-loaded.
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?
With no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description is the only place the two-mode behavior and ID format could be explained, and it isn't. For a lookup tool that is otherwise simple, annotations cover safety but the description leaves the calling contract underspecified.
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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it largely does not. It alludes to an "attributes" mode but never explains that the `attributes` boolean toggles it, nor what format `category_id` takes (e.g. MLB1234) or that it is required.
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 uses a specific verb ("Consulta") plus the resource ("una categoría") and names the secondary payloads (attributes and requirements). However, it never says how this differs from nearby catalog tools such as meli_catalog_product or meli_catalog_eligibility, and "requisitos" stays undefined.
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 guidance on when to call this rather than meli_search_catalog, meli_catalog_product or meli_catalog_eligibility. The description also fails to say that the mode changes with the `attributes` flag, so the agent gets no routing signal at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.