Lists defined sectors with their IDs and names so users can identify the right sector for mapping Türkiye’s data sources or generating ML-ready monthly panels.
Tanımlı sektörleri (id, ad) listeler.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; 'listeler' implies a safe read with no side effects, and it discloses the return shape (id, ad). However, it says nothing about ordering, whether the list is complete or paginated, or any authentication/permission requirements.
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 short sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource plus the returned fields. Every word earns its place.
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 zero parameters and an output schema present, the description needn't explain returns or arguments, yet it still names the returned fields. It is nearly complete for such a simple tool; only the absence of any usage hint for picking it over list_sources leaves a small gap.
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 for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter noise.
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 specific verb and resource ('listeler' / lists sectors) and even names the returned fields (id, ad), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_sources, but the resource noun ('sektörler') is distinct enough to separate the two.
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 statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_sources. Usage is only inferable from the fact that it is a lookup of sector ids.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.