Wenjia Home-Fix Diagnosis MCP Server

list_categories

Lists all home-repair diagnosis categories with symptom counts and update dates, so you can select the right category before diagnosing an appliance or household issue.

Instructions

列出问家家庭维修诊断知识库的全部品类（含品类名、症状数、更新日期）。共 40 品类 / 224 症状，含空调、洗衣机、燃气热水器、电路、上下水、门窗墙面等。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_categories"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.3Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose concrete behavior: the result is a complete enumeration of all 40 categories / 224 symptoms with the fields each entry contains, and it samples the coverage domains (AC, washer, gas heater, electrical, plumbing, walls). It does not say whether the set is static or how the list is ordered, which keeps it below 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences: the first states the action and returned fields, the second gives scale and domain examples. The category examples earn their place by letting an agent judge coverage, though they could be trimmed slightly without loss.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description must explain return content, and it does (name, symptom count, update date) along with corpus scale. The only missing piece is routing advice telling the agent to follow up with get_category or find_symptom.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to mis-specify and the baseline is 4. The description correctly presents this as an unfiltered, complete listing rather than implying hidden filter options.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"列出...全部品类" gives a specific verb (list) plus resource (categories) and even names the fields returned (category name, symptom count, update date). It is distinguishable from get_category by the word "全部", but the description never explicitly contrasts the two, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the enumeration/browse entry point before drilling into get_category or find_symptom. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no named alternative among the many siblings (get_category, search_symptoms, diagnose).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server