Fetch a normalized static page detail for one Allbirds storefront page handle. Return clean JSON for a fixed server-side URL.
Get a Allbirds static page. Returns normalized static page detail for one Allbirds (https://www.allbirds.com) page handle. The storefront URL is fixed server-side.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the storefront URL is fixed server-side and that output is normalized. It does not cover error handling, rate limits, or output structure specifics, which is a moderate gap for an unannotated tool.
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 short sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and resource, the second adds return normalization and the fixed-URL constraint. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations. The description identifies the required input, the resource type, and a key server-side behavior, which is sufficient for correct invocation. It loses one point for not referencing the sibling allbirds_pages tool to complete the contextual map.
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%, with 'handle' documented as 'Page handle'. The description merely repeats the term without adding format details, examples, or guidance on where to find valid handles. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already covers the single parameter adequately.
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?
Description states a specific action ('Get') and resource ('Allbirds static page'), and clarifies it returns detail for a single page handle. This implicitly differentiates it from sibling list tools like allbirds_pages, though it does not name that sibling explicitly. Minor grammar issue ('a Allbirds') does not undermine clarity.
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 description implies usage context: call when you have a specific Allbirds page handle and need normalized static page detail. However, it does not mention alternatives, list tools, or exclusions, leaving the when-not-to-use case unaddressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.