Fetch a Fashionphile static page by handle and return normalized page details in clean JSON.
Get a Fashionphile static page. Returns normalized static page detail for one Fashionphile (https://www.fashionphile.com) page handle. The storefront URL is fixed server-side.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | Page handle |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that output is normalized and that the storefront URL is fixed server-side, which prevents the agent from trying to pass a full URL. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, auth requirements, rate limits, or edge cases such as invalid handles.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, the input is stated, and the server-side URL note earns its place by preventing a likely misunderstanding.
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 one-parameter, low-complexity static-page getter, the description covers what it fetches, the required handle, and the fixed-URL behavior. 'Normalized static page detail' is somewhat vague given there is no output schema, but it is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.
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 schema already documents 'handle' at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning by reinforcing that only a page handle is needed and that the URL is fixed server-side, but it does not provide format constraints, examples, or additional parameter context beyond the schema.
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 action (Get) and resource (Fashionphile static page) and clarifies that it returns normalized static page detail for one page handle. This is distinguishable from siblings like fashionphile_pages by the singular 'one...handle,' but it never explicitly names an alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 implies use when you already have a page handle and need normalized static page content, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as fashionphile_pages, fashionphile_product, or fashionphile_search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.