Retrieve all available categories from note.com to organize content and filter articles by topic.
カテゴリー一覧を取得する
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"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While '取得する' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns paginated results, has rate limits, or provides error handling. The description lacks critical behavioral context for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 a single, efficient Japanese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information.
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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally provide more behavioral context about what the list contains, format, or usage constraints. The description meets basic requirements but leaves gaps in completeness.
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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly doesn't mention any. Since there are no parameters to document, this meets expectations for a parameterless 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 'カテゴリー一覧を取得する' clearly states the action (取得する - get/retrieve) and resource (カテゴリー一覧 - category list). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list-contests' or 'list-hashtags' by specifying categories. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar list operations beyond the resource name.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context for usage, or comparison with sibling tools like 'get-category-notes' or 'search-all' that might retrieve category-related information differently.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.