Fetch a Fashion Nova static page by handle and get title, URL, text, and dates; unknown handles return 404.
Get a Fashion Nova static page. Returns one Fashion Nova static page by its required handle: title, URL, plain-text content, and created, updated and published dates. An unknown handle returns 404. In a fallback mode flagged by transport_mode: "ssr_embedded", the response omits id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | Page handle |
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 real behavioral value: it discloses the 404 for unknown handles and a mode-dependent edge case where `transport_mode: "ssr_embedded"` omits the `id` field. However, it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or caching, leaving notable behavioral gaps.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the return fields and edge cases. Every sentence carries information; only the repeated 'Fashion Nova static page' phrasing is mildly redundant.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description appropriately enumerates the returned fields (title, URL, plain-text content, dates) and covers error and fallback-mode behavior. For a simple single-resource getter this is nearly complete, with only auth/limit context missing.
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 is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Page handle'), so the schema already documents it. The description only reiterates that `handle` is required and adds no format or syntax guidance, matching the baseline 3 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 ('Get a Fashion Nova static page') and clarifies it returns exactly one page keyed by `handle`, which implicitly distinguishes it from the plural sibling `fashionnova_pages`. It is clear and precise, though it never names an alternative explicitly.
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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not route the agent toward `fashionnova_pages` or `fashionnova_sitemaps` for list/lookup needs. The only usage-adjacent detail is the 404 behavior, which is error handling rather than selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.