Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Crawlora MCP

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

fashionphile_sitemap_urls

List Fashionphile sitemap URLs by type—products, collections, pages, blogs, discovery, or other—and cap results with a limit for crawling or auditing.

Instructions

List Fashionphile sitemap URLs. Lists URL entries from Fashionphile's sitemaps, filtered by type (all by default, or products, collections, pages, blogs, agentic_discovery, other) and capped by limit (default 50, max 250). Each entry has its loc, inferred type, handle, last modified date, change frequency, and optional images.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoSitemap type. Allowed values: all, products, collections, pages, blogs, agentic_discovery, other
limitNoMaximum URL entries, defaults to 50 and supports up to 250

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.17.5

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully enumerates the returned fields (loc, inferred type, handle, last modified, change frequency, images), but does not state that this is a read-only operation, nor anything about pagination beyond the limit cap, freshness, or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by filtering and return shape. No filler, though the opening sentence duplicates the tool name somewhat.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers both parameters and the shape of returned entries, which is useful given there is no output schema. However it omits any relationship to the sibling fashionphile_sitemaps tool, leaving the agent unable to choose between them without guesswork.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and the enum. The description restates defaults (all, 50, max 250) without adding semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (Fashionphile sitemap URLs) and immediately scopes it with type filtering. An agent can tell what it does, though it never distinguishes it from the near-identical sibling fashionphile_sitemaps.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the description of filtering/capping behavior, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of the sibling fashionphile_sitemaps as an alternative. An agent must infer the choice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools