Lists Ozon API sections with the count of catalog endpoints in each so you can identify available catalog areas before querying products or categories.
List API sections and how many catalog endpoints each contains.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns counts, which is a mild behavioral detail, but it does not disclose any limits, pagination, or other execution traits. With annotations carrying the main burden, this is adequate but not rich.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, and no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning. This is exemplary 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 description is sufficient for a simple read-only list tool with no parameters and an output schema present. It states what is listed and the key metric (count of endpoints). It does not explain what 'sections' are or how to interpret counts, but for this tool's simplicity, that is acceptable.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is effectively 100% (vacuous). The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds no unnecessary parameter-related information. The baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.
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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('API sections'), and adds detail that it returns the count of catalog endpoints per section. This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from other provider-specific list tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like ozon_perf_list_sections.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ozon_map or ozon_search_methods. It only describes what it does, leaving the agent to infer that it is for getting an overview of sections, but no explicit conditions or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.