List normalized static pages from Allbirds' storefront with page and limit controls, returning clean JSON for static page discovery.
List Allbirds static pages. Returns normalized static pages from Allbirds (https://www.allbirds.com). The storefront URL is fixed server-side.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 1-based page, defaults to 1 | |
| limit | No | Maximum static pages, defaults to 50 and supports up to 250 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the storefront URL is fixed server-side and outputs normalized static pages, but provides no detail about pagination behavior, rate limits, freshness, or response shape. For a list tool, the lack of behavioral context beyond 'normalized' is a notable gap.
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 sentences, compact and front-loaded with the primary action. The URL detail is useful but positioned after the main statement; no redundant filler.
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 two-optional-param list endpoint with no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, without annotations or mention of what 'normalized' means, return shape, or pagination semantics, it is not fully complete for an agent deciding how to paginate or interpret results.
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 coverage is 100% and both optional parameters (page, limit) are described in the schema. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 'List' and resource 'Allbirds static pages', mentions normalized output from allbirds.com. It lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools like allbirds_page or allbirds_sitemaps, but the scope is reasonably clear.
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?
No explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, but the description conveys it is for listing static pages; the fixed server-side URL and normalized output contextualize usage. It does not name alternatives such as allbirds_page or allbirds_sitemaps, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.