list_categoriesFetches available Gumroad categories to help sellers organize products or buyers filter items. Read-only.
List categories. Reviewed native GET /categories; scope: view_profile. Read only; no local effect approval required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Exact private profile label; never inherited credentials, ownership or scope proof. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, so safety is covered. The description goes further by naming the required scope (view_profile) and confirming no approval gate, which is real operational context an agent can act on.
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?
Three terse sentences, front-loaded with the action and endpoint before the scope/safety notes. The phrasing 'no local effect approval required' is somewhat internal jargon but it is compact and does not pad.
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 one-optional-param read-only list tool with no output schema or nesting, the description supplies endpoint, scope requirement, and safety confirmation. Nothing critical is missing, though it never says what a category record contains or whether results are paginated.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single optional 'account' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the account parameter or omission behavior, so no credit above baseline.
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?
States a specific verb+resource (list categories) and pins it to the native GET /categories endpoint, which helps separate it from the similar list_variant_categories sibling. However, it never names that sibling or clarifies which category type is returned, so an agent still has to infer differentiation.
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 when-to-use guidance, no indication of when list_variant_categories would be the better choice, and no preconditions beyond the scope note. The scope string reads as an internal auth detail rather than actionable selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.