Retrieve Pelando's 11 communities to browse deals when numeric category IDs lack labels. Use it as the site's only taxonomy for filtering.
List Pelando's 11 communities — the site's only browse taxonomy.
There is no category system beside this: deals carry a bare numeric categoryId with no
label anywhere in the data. tech-lover and mundo-gamer are the electronics ones.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| refresh | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real behavioral value: it warns that categoryId is a bare numeric with no label anywhere in the data, which prevents a doomed lookup attempt. However, it says nothing about the `refresh` flag's effect, caching, network cost, or return shape, so it is only partially transparent.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and count, with each sentence carrying distinct information (count, taxonomy gap, example names). The example community names are slightly decorative but do aid recognition.
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?
There is no output schema or annotation coverage, and the description omits both the return format and the `refresh` semantics. What it does supply — the count, the taxonomy caveat, and sample names — is genuinely useful for a small list tool, but a fully self-sufficient definition would cover the one parameter.
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 single `refresh` parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned at all in the description. The reader cannot tell whether refresh forces a network fetch, invalidates a cache, or changes the payload, so meaning is missing at both levels.
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?
It names a specific verb and resource ('List Pelando's 11 communities') and even fixes the cardinality, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It also distinguishes the tool from any category-style lookup by stating this is the site's only browse taxonomy. No sibling does anything similar, so it is unambiguous.
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?
By calling this 'the site's only browse taxonomy' the description implies the tool is the entry point for discovering communities, but it never states when to prefer it over siblings like browse_feed or search_deals, nor any prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.