list_categoriesRetrieve the category tree fixed by Up, optionally filtered by parent category ID, to classify transactions or inspect available categories.
List the category tree. Categories are fixed by Up, not user-defined.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| parent | No | Return only children of this parent category id, e.g. `good-life`. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: categories are a fixed, provider-controlled taxonomy (i.e., read-only and non-user-defined). It says nothing about ordering, tree depth, or pagination behavior, so transparency is partial.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the supporting constraint.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single optional parameter is documented in the schema. The definition is sufficient to call the tool correctly; only the tree shape and filtering behavior are left implicit.
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% and the sole 'parent' parameter already carries a description with an example id, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no filtering semantics beyond what the schema states.
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 and resource ('List the category tree'), which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling get_category that fetches a single category. It doesn't explicitly name that sibling or clarify the tree-vs-single boundary, 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?
Usage is implied by the resource and by the note that categories are fixed by Up, which signals that listing (not creating/editing) is the only relevant operation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_category over list_categories, and no prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.