Retrieve a static Allbirds store page by handle to get title, URL, publish/update times, and plain-text content; missing handles return 404.
Get a Allbirds static page. Returns one static page from the Allbirds store by its handle: title, URL, publish and update times, and content as plain text rather than HTML. id is omitted on some pages. A handle that does not exist returns 404.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | Page handle |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it lists returned fields, states `content` is plain text rather than HTML, warns that `id` is omitted on some pages, and specifies that a missing handle returns 404. Auth, rate limits, and pagination are unmentioned, keeping it below a 5.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the return/error semantics. No filler, though the phrasing ('a Allbirds') is slightly rough and could be tightened.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers return fields, content format, and error behavior adequately. Only permissions/rate-limit context is absent, which is minor here.
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 description coverage is 100% and there is a single documented `handle` parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting (baseline 3). The description adds the useful detail that an unknown handle yields 404 but no format or derivation hints for the handle itself.
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 and resource ('Get a Allbirds static page') and pins down the input ('by its `handle`'). It implicitly contrasts with the sibling allbirds_pages (plural list) via the singular 'one static page', but never names or explicitly differentiates from it, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied: fetch a single page when you have its handle. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and no mention of the sibling allbirds_pages for enumerating pages, so an agent must infer the routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.