listCategoriesFetch site categories and their page counts from GPSEM. Use it to review taxonomy structure and identify where content is organized for auditing or CMS workflows.
Lister les catégories — Catégories (taxonomies) avec leur nombre de pages. — (GET /sites/{siteId}/categories)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteId | Yes | ID site encodé (hashid) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the GET method and notes that the response includes page counts, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations.
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?
The description is one concise sentence followed by the endpoint. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every element (taxonomy clarification, page count, HTTP method) adds value without 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 read-only list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context: what is listed, the page-count detail, and the endpoint. It does not mention pagination or fields, but these are not critical for a basic list call.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter siteId, whose description already explains it as an encoded hashid. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the action ('Lister les catégories') and the specific resource ('Catégories (taxonomies) avec leur nombre de pages'). It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like listSites and listPages by naming the resource explicitly and adding the page-count detail.
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?
The usage is implied by the resource name, but the description does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no guidance on when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.