List Gymshark sitemaps and return child sitemap URLs from the /sitemap.xml index with inferred sitemap types. Use it to inspect Gymshark storefront sitemap structure.
List Gymshark sitemaps. Returns child sitemap URLs from Gymshark's (https://row.gymshark.com) /sitemap.xml index with inferred sitemap types. The storefront URL is fixed server-side.
| 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals useful behavioral details: it reads the fixed remote `/sitemap.xml` index, returns child sitemap URLs with inferred types, and notes that the storefront URL is fixed server-side. It could mention output format or error behavior, but this is a simple read-only operation with no parameters.
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, each with a purpose: the first states the tool's action, the second the exact source and output, the third explains the fixed URL. No redundant or filler wording.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is sufficiently complete. It names the source URL, the returned data (child sitemap URLs with inferred types), and the server-side fixed URL. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this tool correctly.
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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description meaningfully explains why: the storefront URL is fixed server-side. This goes beyond the empty schema and tells the agent no configuration is needed, which is useful for invocation.
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 and resource: listing Gymshark sitemaps, returning child sitemap URLs from Gymshark's `/sitemap.xml` index with inferred sitemap types. It is clear about what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely named sibling `gymshark_sitemap_urls`, so it stops short of a 5.
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 no guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives. With `gymshark_sitemap_urls` as a sibling, an agent is left to guess whether to call this tool or that one for a given sitemap-related task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.