list_collectionsList active curated collections (themed landing pages) with their slugs and urls. Args: limit?.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max collections to return (default 50, max 100). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collections | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Max collections to return (default 50, max 100)."Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "collections": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "slug": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "description": "Collection landing page.",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide read-only and idempotent hints. Description adds 'active curated collections' and mentions return fields, but no additional behavioral traits beyond annotations.
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?
Description is one sentence plus brief arg mention; very concise. However, it omits useful context like default/max limit values which could be integrated efficiently.
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?
Tool is simple with output schema present, so return values are covered. Lacks pagination or filtering info, but given low complexity, it is reasonably complete.
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 schemas provide parameter descriptions. Description only says 'Args: limit?' which adds no meaning beyond the schema.
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?
Clearly states verb 'List', resource 'collections', and specifies return fields (slugs and urls). Distinguishes from sibling tools focused on cart, products, and designers.
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?
No guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., search_products). Only mentions 'Args: limit?' without context on default behavior or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.