Fetch child sitemap URLs and inferred types from Kylie Cosmetics' /sitemap.xml index. Helps crawl or analyze the storefront's site structure.
List Kylie Cosmetics sitemaps. Returns child sitemap URLs from Kylie Cosmetics's (https://www.kyliecosmetics.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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the storefront URL is fixed server-side, which is important for a zero-parameter tool, and that the child sitemap URLs come from the /sitemap.xml index with inferred types. This adds real behavioral context beyond the schema.
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 sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the source and output details, and the fixed-URL constraint. Information is front-loaded and there is no filler.
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 read-only tool, the description is largely complete: source, output concept, and invocation constraint are all covered. However, since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the exact returned fields would make it fully complete.
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 no parameters, and the description explicitly explains why by noting the storefront URL is fixed server-side. This adds meaning to the empty input schema and prevents the agent from expecting configurable input.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('Kylie Cosmetics sitemaps') and explains the output: child sitemap URLs extracted from the /sitemap.xml index with inferred types. This makes the tool easy to distinguish from both kyliecosmetics_sitemap_urls and other brands' sitemap tools.
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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you need the child sitemap entries from Kylie Cosmetics' sitemap index. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the behavior is specific enough that an agent can infer appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.