Retrieve Everlane sitemap URLs from the /sitemap.xml index, complete with inferred sitemap types for each entry.
List Everlane sitemaps. Returns child sitemap URLs from Everlane's (https://www.everlane.com) /sitemap.xml index with inferred sitemap types. The storefront URL is fixed server-side.
| 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 disclosure burden. It clearly specifies the data source, that it returns child sitemap URLs, that types are inferred, and that the storefront URL is fixed server-side. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the name and 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 with no redundancy. Key facts are front-loaded: what it lists, where it lists from, and what the returned data contains.
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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description covers the source, output, and behavior, which is nearly complete. It could slightly benefit from noting the format of the return data (e.g., list of objects with URL+type fields), but that is not a critical gap.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics gap to fill. The description appropriately focuses on explaining what the tool returns rather than parameters, which is the correct allocation of value for a parameterless tool.
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 ('List'), a specific resource (Everlane sitemaps), and clarifies the source (/sitemap.xml index) and output scope (child sitemap URLs with inferred types). Differentiates from siblings by describing the index-level traversal.
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?
Description implies this is the entry point for discovering Everlane sitemaps and mentions the fixed storefront URL, giving context for when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like everlane_sitemap_urls or everlane_pages, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.