Lists child sitemap URLs from Allbirds' /sitemap.xml index and labels each sitemap type to support crawl setup or URL discovery.
List Allbirds sitemaps. Returns child sitemap URLs from Allbirds's (https://www.allbirds.com) /sitemap.xml index with inferred sitemap types. The storefront URL is fixed server-side.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses what the tool returns (child sitemap URLs with inferred types), the source (/sitemap.xml index), and a key behavioral constraint (storefront URL fixed server-side). This is solid for a zero-parameter read-only listing tool, though it does not mention rate limits or output shape.
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 short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence adds necessary detail about output and server-side behavior. Every sentence 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?
For a no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essentials: what it lists, where it fetches from, and that no configuration is needed. It could specify the exact return format structure (e.g., array of {url, type}) but that is a minor gap for a simple sitemap index listing.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining that no parameter is needed because the storefront URL is fixed server-side, which preemptively answers why the input schema is empty and reassures the agent that no URL argument is expected.
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?
The description starts with a clear verb and resource: 'List Allbirds sitemaps.' It specifies that the output is child sitemap URLs from the /sitemap.xml index with inferred sitemap types, which precisely distinguishes it from the sibling allbirds_sitemap_urls and other per-brand sitemap tools.
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 usage context is implied: an agent uses this when it needs an overview of Allbirds's sitemap structure. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over the sibling allbirds_sitemap_urls or which tool to choose for a given task, leaving some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.