Retrieve Depop's full multi-region size taxonomy, including every composite size ID needed to filter results in Depop search and shop endpoints.
Get Depop's size taxonomy. Returns Depop's full, multi-region size taxonomy -- every composite id usable with /depop/search's and /depop/shop/{username}'s sizes filter. Public data sourced from Depop's own size-filter API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.14.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the data is public and sourced from Depop's own API, implying safe read-only access. However, it does not disclose the response structure, whether the list is paginated, or how large the taxonomy may be, which leaves a moderate gap for an un-annotated 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 sentences contain all relevant information without filler. The description front-loads the action ('Get Depop's size taxonomy'), then adds specific details about scope and usage in the second, compact sentence.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, but the description communicates the return conceptualization, data source, and downstream use in enough detail to support correct invocation. A concrete example of the composite ID format or response shape would make it fully complete, but for a zero-parameter public reference lookup it is largely sufficient.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds no parameter explanations but does add semantic value by stating the purpose of the returned IDs (for use in depop search/shop size filters).
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 names the exact resource ('Depop's size taxonomy') and gives a specific verb ('Get'), clearly distinguishing it from taxonomy siblings like depop_brands and depop_categories. It also specifies the outputs are composite IDs usable with /depop/search and /depop/shop filters, leaving no doubt about what the tool provides.
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 makes it clear the returned IDs are intended for the sizes filter in specific Depop endpoints, giving an agent strong context for when to fetch this taxonomy. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the pointed reference to the filter serves as a useful usage cue.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.