List Everlane collections by page and limit, returning structured JSON for storefront browsing.
List Everlane collections. Returns collections from Everlane (https://www.everlane.com). The storefront URL is fixed server-side. Valid empty result pages return 200 with an empty collections array.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 1-based page, defaults to 1 | |
| limit | No | Maximum collections, 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add useful behavior: the storefront URL is fixed server-side (so no URL parameter is needed) and empty pages return 200 with an empty array rather than an error. It stops short of stating that this is a read-only, non-destructive list, or any pagination/count semantics beyond the schema.
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, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The parenthetical URL is slightly redundant given the tool name but does anchor provenance. Nothing is buried or repeated.
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-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and the empty-result case but omits any sense of what a collection record contains or how deep pagination goes. Adequate, not complete.
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%, so the schema already documents 'page' (1-based, default 1) and 'limit' (default 50, up to 250). The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 and resource ('List Everlane collections'), and the domain is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the adjacent everlane_collection_products (products within a collection) or everlane_products, so an agent must infer the boundary from the names alone.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The description never says whether this is the entry point for browsing the catalog, nor when to prefer everlane_collections over everlane_products or everlane_search_suggest.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.