Fetch normalized storefront profile data for the fixed SKIMS domain. Use skims_pages for static content, skims_page for one page, or skims_products for catalog items.
| 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 only the notion that data is 'normalized' for a 'fixed SKIMS domain'; it does not expand on what normalization entails, freshness, or any additional behavioral traits. Adequate but thin given the annotations carry most of the burden.
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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the sibling routing following immediately. Every clause 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 an output schema present, return-value detail need not be repeated, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and call a no-arg read tool, with only minor gaps in what 'normalized profile' contains.
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 the description's lack of parameter detail is not a gap. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool, and the description appropriately communicates that the domain is fixed rather than parameterizable.
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 ('Fetch') and resource ('normalized storefront profile data for the fixed SKIMS domain'), and names the sibling tools it is not (skims_pages, skims_page, skims_products). An agent can distinguish this from the other SKIMS endpoints without opening any 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?
The second sentence explicitly routes the agent to three alternatives with their respective purposes ('skims_pages for static content', 'skims_page for one page', 'skims_products for catalog items'). It gives clear context via contrast, though it never states an explicit exclusion or the selecting condition for using this tool itself.
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.
