Lists item categories such as body, hair, and clothing with the number of items in each, enabling users to see available customization options for character generation.
Lista as categorias de itens (ex.: body, hair, torso/clothes) com a quantidade de itens.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape ('com a quantidade de itens'), which is genuinely useful since there is no output schema. However, it says nothing about permissions, caching, or ordering, leaving gaps for a tool with zero structured behavior hints.
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 tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds examples and the return detail. No filler or redundancy.
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 simple zero-param list tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned and gives examples. Only minor elements (ordering, whether counts are global or filtered) are unspecified.
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 no parameters (0 required, empty schema), so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. A 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.
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 ('Lista') and resource ('categorias de itens') and gives concrete examples (body, hair, torso/clothes) plus the returned count. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like search_items or get_item.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. For a zero-parameter listing tool the usage is largely implied by the name and description, but nothing routes the agent between this and the sibling item tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.