List all loop categories with live counts and library filter URLs to help coding agents quickly select and filter work loops by goal.
List loop categories with live counts and library filter URLs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| categories | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "categories": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "category": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "library_url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "loop_count": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "category",
+ "loop_count",
+ "library_url"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "categories"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that counts are "live" and that filter URLs are included, but with an output schema present it need not elaborate further; this is modest added context.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key noun (loop categories) leads. It is almost too terse to carry usage or scope nuance, but every word earns its place.
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?
With zero parameters, read-only annotations, and an output schema to describe the return shape, the description covers the essentials. The one gap is routing guidance relative to the many sibling catalog tools.
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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ("List loop categories") and adds scope detail (live counts, library filter URLs), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like browse_catalog or catalog_stats, which also surface catalog-level information.
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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus browse_catalog, search_loops, or catalog_stats. The implied usage is a bare listing, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.