Retrieve Vinted category IDs and paths, optionally filtering by a case-insensitive path query and returning leaf categories only, to select the correct category for listings or searches.
Category tree flattened to {id, title, path, leaf}. Filter by a case-insensitive query on the path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| leaves_only | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description does disclose the return shape and that the query matches case-insensitively against the path, implying a read-only listing. However, it says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior for limit, or whether the full tree is always returned.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the return shape and followed by the filter semantics. No filler.
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 three-parameter read tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers return fields and query behavior but leaves limit and leaves_only undocumented. An agent can call it, but not fully predict the result set size or leaf filtering.
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 explain all three parameters. It covers query well (case-insensitive on path) and implies leaf via the 'leaf' field, but never explains limit or that leaves_only restricts results to leaf categories.
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?
Names the resource ('Category tree') and specifies the flattened shape returned ({id, title, path, leaf}), so the agent knows this is a listing endpoint rather than the sibling suggest_category. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list all', but the intent is clear from the name and description.
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 versus suggest_category or search. The only usage-like statement is the query filter, which is parameter behavior, not tool selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.