list_categoriesList transaction categories from your accounting ledger, with optional filtering by income, expense, asset, liability, or equity type to aid in categorization.
List available transaction categories for categorization
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Filter by type: income, expense, asset, liability, equity |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false) already disclose that this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context, such as that it returns categories for categorization. It does not contradict annotations, but it does not add significant new behavioral information beyond what annotations provide.
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, concise sentence that conveys the purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action. It earns a 4 because it is succinct and directly relevant.
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?
Given that there is no output schema and only one optional parameter, the description is adequate for a basic listing tool. However, it does not mention any filtering behavior beyond 'type' or the response format, which could be beneficial. It is complete enough for the tool's simplicity.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'type' parameter fully described as 'Filter by type: income, expense, asset, liability, equity'. The description does not provide additional detail beyond the schema, but since the schema is complete, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clear verb and resource: 'List available transaction categories for categorization.' It conveys the tool's purpose effectively. While there are sibling tools like get_chart_of_accounts that could overlap, the description does not explicitly differentiate, so it falls short of a 5.
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. For instance, it does not explain when to use list_categories instead of get_chart_of_accounts. The context is implied but not stated, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.