growwer_get_vocabularyLists valid codes with English names for countries, languages, topics, product types, and link types so filters and answers use known IDs instead of guesses.
Use this when a filter or an answer takes a country, language, topic, product type or link type: lists every code with its English name, so the ids are never guessed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the return content (every code paired with its English name) and the intent behind it ('so the ids are never guessed'), which is important since there is no output schema. It does not say how the entries are grouped or how large the response is.
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?
A single sentence with the usage trigger front-loaded ahead of the effect. Nothing is repeated from the annotations and there is no filler.
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?
With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return, and it does state that the payload is codes plus English names for five vocabulary families. It is slightly thin on shape (whether results are grouped per category) and on whether the full list is always returned unpaginated.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description implicitly confirms the no-argument nature by saying it lists every code, i.e. no filtering input is required.
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 — it 'lists every code with its English name' for the enumerated vocabularies (country, language, topic, product type, link type). That is far more concrete than the title 'Get the codes and names'. It does not distinguish itself from the other 'getter' sibling growwer_get_guide, which an agent could conceivably confuse with it, so it stops 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?
Gives an explicit triggering condition: use it 'when a filter or an answer takes a country, language, topic, product type or link type.' That tells the agent exactly the situation that selects this tool. There is no explicit exclusion or named alternative, but no sibling overlaps enough to require one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.