List Quince's US child sitemaps for products, collections, subcollections, and pages, with an inferred type. Use quince_sitemap_urls to retrieve URLs from one child sitemap.
| 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 and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: scope is limited to US child sitemaps, the returned entries carry an inferred type, and it hints at the downstream retrieval step. It does not mention pagination or return shape, but with an output schema present that is acceptable.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose before the routing guidance. Every clause earns its place: the scope (US), the content categories, the type inference, and the named alternative.
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?
For a simple, zero-parameter listing tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description supplies everything needed: what is listed, its geographic scope, the nature of the returned type, and the next tool to call. No critical behavioral or usage gaps remain.
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 schema coverage of 100% is trivially satisfied and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain input semantics, and it appropriately focuses on output content and workflow instead.
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 (List) and resource (Quince's US child sitemaps), then enumerates the covered content types (products, collections, subcollections, pages) and notes the inferred type. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling quince_sitemap_urls by naming its role, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.
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?
It names the alternative tool (quince_sitemap_urls) and states the condition for switching: use that tool to retrieve URLs from one child sitemap. This establishes a clear discovery-then-fetch workflow, leaving no ambiguity about when to call quince_sitemaps versus quince_sitemap_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.
