Retrieve Cole Haan storefront metadata without a URL parameter. The store URL is fixed server-side, returning structured details.
Get Cole Haan store metadata. Returns storefront metadata for Cole Haan (https://www.colehaan.com). The storefront URL is fixed server-side, so no url parameter is accepted.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuine implementation trait — the storefront URL is fixed server-side and cannot be redirected — which is useful context beyond the empty schema. However it says nothing about return shape, freshness, or failure modes.
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, front-loaded with the purpose then the URL scope. Slightly redundant, since "Get Cole Haan store metadata" and "Returns storefront metadata for Cole Haan" restate the same idea, but overall tight.
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?
With no output schema, the description should ideally hint at what the returned metadata contains; it only says "storefront metadata" without any field-level detail. For a simple zero-arg read tool this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the response.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description also explains why there are none (the URL is fixed server-side), which preempts an agent from trying to pass a url argument — a small but real value-add over the empty schema.
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 ("Get") and resource (Cole Haan store metadata / storefront metadata for colehaan.com). This distinguishes it reasonably from neighbors like colehaan_product, colehaan_collections, and colehaan_page, though the exact contents of "store metadata" remain somewhat abstract.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this vs. sibling tools such as colehaan_page or colehaan_sitemaps. The only usage note is the negative constraint about the url parameter, which is scoping rather than routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.