Retrieve normalized Everlane static pages with pagination controls. Set page and limit to collect up to 250 pages for catalog or content analysis.
List Everlane static pages. Returns normalized static pages from Everlane (https://www.everlane.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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add some useful behavioral context: output is 'normalized' and the storefront URL is 'fixed server-side.' However, it does not describe response shape, pagination behavior beyond the schema, rate limits, or side effects, though 'List' strongly implies a read operation.
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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and add only useful supporting details. There is no filler, redundancy, or wasted explanation.
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?
This is a low-complexity tool with two optional params and a well-covered schema, so the description does not need to be lengthy. However, it lacks an output schema, return-value details beyond 'normalized static pages,' and explicit differentiation from everlane_page, leaving a few completeness gaps.
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%, with both 'page' and 'limit' already described clearly. The description adds general context about a fixed server-side URL but does not add meaning about the two parameters themselves, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'List Everlane static pages.' It also adds useful context with 'Returns normalized static pages' and the fixed storefront URL. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool everlane_page, so an agent must infer the singular/plural relationship.
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 tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description implies 'use this to list static pages' but does not explain when everlane_page or other Everlane tools would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.