Retrieve child sitemap URLs and inferred sitemap types from Fashion Nova's sitemap index to map site structure for crawling or SEO analysis.
List Fashion Nova sitemaps. Returns child sitemap URLs from Fashion Nova's (https://www.fashionnova.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 full burden. It discloses the source URL, the output contents (child sitemap URLs with inferred types), and importantly that the storefront URL is fixed server-side, preventing an agent from incorrectly seeking a URL parameter. It stops short of detailing output structure or heuristic failure modes, but for a zero-argument listing this is solid coverage.
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 compact sentences, each earning its place: the action, the output detail, and the server-side constraint. No wasted words and the most important information appears first.
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 sitemap-index listing with no output schema, the description is adequate. An agent knows exactly what it will receive, where the data comes from, and that no configuration is required. No critical invocation information is 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?
The tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds useful context by explaining that the storefront URL is fixed server-side, which clarifies why no parameter exists.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List Fashion Nova sitemaps') and immediately explains what is returned: child sitemap URLs from the `/sitemap.xml` index with inferred sitemap types. The brand and source URL make it distinguishable from the many other retail sitemap tools in the sibling list.
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 clearly implies the tool is for discovering child sitemaps from indexed sitemap.xml, but it never explicitly states when to choose this over alternatives, especially the closely related fashionnova_sitemap_urls. There is no exclusion or naming of a follow-up tool, so usage guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.