Fetch paginated static pages from Fashion Nova and return normalized JSON listings for storefront pages.
List Fashion Nova static pages. Returns normalized static pages from Fashion Nova (https://www.fashionnova.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 behavioral burden. It adds useful context: output is 'normalized' and the storefront URL is 'fixed server-side,' which tells the agent no URL parameter is needed. It does not disclose whether the result includes page content, how pagination behaves beyond schema defaults, or any other operational traits.
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 concise sentences, with the core action front-loaded. The second and third sentences add the normalized-output and fixed-URL context, making the definition compact and readable, though there is mild redundancy between the first and second sentences.
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 list tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description covers what, where, and a normalization note. It does not explain what qualifies as a 'static page,' how to determine total pages, or the relationship to the singular fashionnova_page tool, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
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% for page and limit, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; the 'fixed server-side URL' note is unrelated to page/limit semantics.
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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'List Fashion Nova static pages,' followed by the source URL. The plural 'pages' and the 'List' verb imply collection retrieval, distinguishing it from the sibling fashionnova_page, but it does not explicitly call out that distinction.
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 purpose statement implies when to use this tool: to list all static pages from Fashion Nova. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to use fashionnova_page instead, and no exclusions or alternative routing. The usage context is implied, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.