List Gymshark static pages with normalized output and pagination controls, letting you browse or collect storefront content up to 250 items per request.
List Gymshark static pages. Returns normalized static pages from Gymshark (https://row.gymshark.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?
There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that pages are normalized and that the URL is fixed server-side, but it doesn't reveal potential behavior like pagination limits, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation. Some useful context is added, but it's not comprehensive.
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?
The description is concise, consisting of two sentences that directly state what the tool does and the key fixed-URL constraint. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.
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 zero required parameters and full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, without a note about what 'normalized static pages' means, when to choose this over sibling page/sitemap tools, or any behavioral limits, it leaves a moderate gap.
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 the page and limit parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool lists Gymshark static pages and returns normalized static pages, which is a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like gymshark_sitemaps or gymshark_page, but the word 'pages' and the fixed URL detail make the function 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 gives context that the storefront URL is fixed server-side, which implies no store selection is needed, but it doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives like gymshark_sitemaps or gymshark_page. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.