Retrieve Avito's category tree with departments, subcategories, IDs, names, aliases, parent IDs, levels, and browse URLs to map marketplace categories and build listing filters.
Get the Avito category tree: departments and sub-categories with id, name, alias (URL slug for the category filter), parent id, level and browse URL. 5 point per returned record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses cost ('5 point per returned record') and the shape of returned records, but does not state read-only safety, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the full tree is returned in one call.
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?
Two compact sentences with no filler. The core purpose and return fields are front-loaded, and the cost note is brief and relevant.
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, parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the returned tree structure, field names, and cost. It could still mention whether the entire tree is returned or whether any pagination/depth limit applies.
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 input parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description correctly does not invent any.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Avito category tree'), then enumerates the returned fields (id, name, alias, parent id, level, browse URL). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling Avito tools like run_avito_items and run_avito_items_search.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use statement or comparison to alternatives. However, the parenthetical '(URL slug for the category filter)' implies the tree is used to discover category filters for other Avito search tools, making usage inferable but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.