TimeLib MCP

list_categories

Retrieve and browse product categories from your store with support for search queries, pagination, and field filtering to keep responses lean.

Instructions

List product categories.

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
`q`	No
`limit`	No	Max results (default 20).
`fields`	No	Comma-separated field selection, e.g. 'id,title,status,*variants'. Use to keep responses small.
`offset`	No	Results to skip (pagination).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires auth, pagination behavior beyond the offset param, or what the default sort order is.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with zero wasted words. It's efficient but arguably too minimal given the lack of annotations and the 4-parameter schema.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented 'q' parameter, the description is inadequate. It doesn't mention what fields are returned, default pagination limits, or filtering behavior of 'q'. The schema helps but the description leaves significant gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 75%, so most parameters (limit, fields, offset) are already documented in the schema. The 'q' parameter lacks a description, and the tool description doesn't compensate for that gap, but the schema covers the majority.

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?

The description 'List product categories' uses a clear verb+resource construction that properly identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like list_collections and create_category, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_collections or list_product_tags. The description is a bare statement of function with no context about filtering, scoping, or performance considerations.

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