List all child sitemaps in Gymshark's sitemap index, returning each URL and its inferred type: products, collections, pages, blogs, agentic_discovery, or other.
List Gymshark sitemaps. Lists the child sitemaps in Gymshark's sitemap index. Each entry has its loc and a type of products, collections, pages, blogs, agentic_discovery or other. The type is worked out from the sitemap URL.
| 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 bears the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (each entry has a `loc` and a worked-out type from the URL), which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about auth requirements, pagination, ordering, or whether it's a live vs cached read.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. The opening 'List Gymshark sitemaps. Lists the child sitemaps...' is mildly redundant, but the type enumeration is efficient and earns its space.
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 0-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers both what the tool returns and the meaning of the fields, including the type taxonomy. Missing only auth/pagination context, which is minor here.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to document and the description correctly focuses on the operation rather than inputs.
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 verb and resource ('List Gymshark sitemaps') and clarifies these are child sitemaps within Gymshark's sitemap index. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling gymshark_sitemap_urls, leaving that differentiation to inference.
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 never says when to use this tool versus alternatives like gymshark_sitemap_urls or the page/product tools, and gives no prerequisites or exclusion criteria. Usage context is only implied by the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.