Retrieve static pages from Fashionphile with pagination support. Returns normalized data with configurable page and limit (up to 250).
List Fashionphile static pages. Returns normalized static pages from Fashionphile (https://www.fashionphile.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.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the storefront URL is fixed server-side, which is useful context, and that results are 'normalized'. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior details, rate limits, or what fields the static pages contain. It's a read-only listing operation, which is implied but not explicitly stated.
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 sentences with no waste. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the fixed-URL note is a useful addition. It's appropriately sized for a simple paginated listing tool.
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 paginated listing tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It covers what the tool does and the fixed URL. However, it doesn't mention what a 'static page' contains or how results are structured, which could matter for an agent deciding between this and fashionphile_page. The sibling fashionphile_page (singular) exists, so a bit more differentiation would improve completeness.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (page and limit) with their defaults and limits. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Fashionphile static pages'), and clarifies it returns normalized static pages from fashionphile.com. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling fashionphile_page (singular), but the plural 'pages' and pagination parameters make the distinction reasonably clear.
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 this is for listing static pages, and the pagination parameters suggest it's for browsing all pages. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs fashionphile_page (singular) or other fashionphile tools like fashionphile_products or fashionphile_search. The context is clear but no exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.