Quince's US-region child sitemaps (products, collections, subcollections, and static pages) with an inferred type, from quince.com's own public sitemap index.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope context ('US-region', 'from quince.com's own public sitemap index') and notes the type is 'inferred', but says nothing about pagination, coverage limits, or freshness.
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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource, its parts, and its source with no filler. Slightly dense with parenthetical enumeration but every element 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a zero-parameter discovery tool, stating the scope, contents, and provenance is nearly sufficient; only a pointer to the sibling URL tool is missing.
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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.
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 names a specific resource (Quince's US-region child sitemaps) and enumerates the kinds returned (products, collections, subcollections, static pages) plus the source (quince.com's public sitemap index). It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling quince_sitemap_urls, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the closely related quince_sitemap_urls sibling. An agent must infer from the description alone whether it wants the child sitemap index or the resolved URLs.
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.
