Skip to main content
Glama

whataburger_sitemap

Read-only

Whataburger's store-URL index (~3,950 entries), filterable to one page kind: store, curbside, delivery, or directory.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "whataburger_sitemap"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoOptional. Filter by page kind: store, curbside, delivery, directory. Default all.
pageNoOptional. 1-based page, default 1.
page_sizeNoOptional. Entries per page, 1-500, default 100.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesThe tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds the index size (~3,950 entries), which helps the agent anticipate result volume, but says nothing about pagination or response shape beyond what the schema provides.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the resource, its scale, and the filter dimension with zero filler. Every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the annotations cover safety. The description plus schema and output schema are sufficient to call the tool correctly; only an explicit sibling distinction would improve it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (kind, page, page_size) are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the kind values, adding no new semantics beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource — Whataburger's store-URL index — and quantifies it (~3,950 entries), so an agent knows it is an enumeration tool, not a store-detail lookup. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling whataburger_store, which is the main ambiguity left.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: a URL index with a page-kind filter is evidently for enumerating site URLs by kind. However, there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over whataburger_store or other Whataburger tools, and no exclusion guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.