Skip to main content
Glama
sepehr071

masterkala-mcp

by sepehr071
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

List categories

mk_categories
Read-only

List MasterKala product categories and their IDs to find a category_id for browsing or filtering, with optional Persian name or English slug filtering.

Instructions

List MasterKala's product categories with their ids (about 100 main categories).

Use to get a category_id for mk_browse / mk_filters. mk_search also returns the categories matching a keyword.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoOptional filter on the Persian name or English slug, e.g. 'شارژر' or 'charger'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.3.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / query / title
      Removed value: -"Query"
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"mk_categoriesArguments"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "title": "mk_categoriesDictOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this as a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context (the catalog size, the return of ids), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or completeness beyond the ~100 figure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the resource and the downstream use (category_id) front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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 a fully documented single param and no output schema, this covers what an agent needs: what it returns (ids), how many, and why to call it. Only the optional query filter goes unmentioned in prose.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single optional 'query' param is fully documented in the schema (Persian name / English slug, examples). The description does not mention the filter at all, so it adds nothing on this dimension; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a precise verb+resource ('List MasterKala's product categories with their ids') and adds scale ('about 100 main categories'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling mk_search, which returns categories by keyword.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says when to use it: to obtain a category_id for mk_browse / mk_filters. It also names the alternative (mk_search) and the condition that selects it, so the agent can route without opening other schemas.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools