Retrieve the full Kleinanzeigen category tree with IDs, names, aliases, URLs, and parent IDs to map departments and subcategories for listing or data workflows.
Full Kleinanzeigen category tree: id, name, alias, URL and parent id for every department and subcategory. Flat 5 points per successful run.
| 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 burden. It discloses the returned fields and an explicit cost model ("Flat 5 points per successful run"), which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about read-only nature, caching, or whether the tree is stable across calls.
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 short sentences, zero filler. The resource and its fields are front-loaded, and the cost note follows without padding.
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 parameterless reference tool with no output schema, stating the returned fields and the point cost covers nearly everything an agent needs. Only the expected use in a category-lookup workflow is left implicit.
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 schema has no semantics to cover and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description misrepresents or adds confusion on this front.
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?
Names a specific resource (the full Kleinanzeigen category tree) and enumerates the fields it yields (id, name, alias, URL, parent id). It is distinguishable from siblings like run_kleinanzeigen_listings or run_olx_categories, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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 when-to-use guidance, no statement that this is a reference lookup whose output feeds category-filtered listing searches, and no named alternative. The agent must infer the purpose of a no-argument tree dump.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.