List Everlane sitemaps to retrieve child sitemap URLs and classify each as products, collections, pages, blogs, agentic_discovery, or other.
List Everlane sitemaps. Lists the child sitemaps in Everlane's sitemap index. Each entry has its loc URL and an inferred type: products, collections, pages, blogs, agentic_discovery or other. It takes no parameters.
| 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, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add real behavioral value: it discloses the return shape (each entry has a loc URL and an inferred type drawn from a closed set of values). It doesn't state auth/rate-limit or read-only nature explicitly, but the listing semantics and enum types are substantive context beyond the structured fields.
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 first, then the return detail, then the parameter note. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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 parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and result structure adequately; with no annotations and no output schema the description is the sole source, and it delivers the essentials although it omits any mention of pagination or return size.
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, and the description's explicit 'It takes no parameters' matches the empty schema rather than contradicting it. Nothing further is required.
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 gives a specific verb (List) and resource (child sitemaps in Everlane's sitemap index), and even names the inferred entry fields, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling everlane_sitemap_urls, which is the main gap keeping it below a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance and no alternative is named. An agent cannot tell from the text whether to reach for this versus everlane_sitemap_urls; the only usage fact given ('takes no parameters') is structural, not routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.