list_categoriesLists CodeDebut product categories ordered by activity, showing product counts, page URLs, and slugs for browsing categories or filtering product searches.
CodeDebut's categories, busiest first, with how many products each has and the category page url. Use the slugs with browse_category or the category filter of search_products.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context the annotations do not: the sort order is by popularity ('busiest first'), and the result includes per-category product counts and a page URL. It does not mention pagination, result caps, or whether the list is exhaustive, which is the remaining gap.
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 split into two clauses: the first front-loads what is returned and its ordering, the second tells the agent what to do with the slugs. No restatement of the name or title and 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?
There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does: ordering, the product count, and the 'url' field. Combined with annotations that cover the safety profile and a zero-parameter schema, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate in the input. The schema is a bare empty object, which is consistent with the description's implicit claim that the call is parameterless.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('CodeDebut's categories') and immediately characterizes the return: ordering ('busiest first'), contents ('how many products each has'), and the 'url' field. An agent can distinguish this discovery tool from get_product or search_products without opening any schema.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use the slugs with browse_category or the category filter of search_products,' naming two sibling tools and the exact value this tool supplies to them. It stops short of stating when-not to call this tool (e.g., when the agent already knows the category slug), so it is a strong 4 rather than a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.