Lists Oh Polly static pages and returns normalized storefront page data, supporting page and limit parameters for paginated retrieval.
List Oh Polly static pages. Returns normalized static pages from Oh Polly (https://www.ohpolly.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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context: output is 'normalized' and 'the storefront URL is fixed server-side,' which tells the agent it cannot target a different storefront. However, it does not disclose what 'normalized' means structurally, pagination behavior beyond schema defaults, error conditions, 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence is mildly redundant with the first ('List... pages' vs 'Returns... pages') but earns its place by adding the normalization detail. The URL is minor noise, yet overall very compact and scannable.
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?
Adequate for a simple two-parameter list tool: it states the resource, notes normalization, and flags the fixed storefront URL. However, with no output schema or annotations, the agent is left guessing about the shape of a 'normalized static page' and how this tool differs behaviorally from the singular ohpolly_page sibling.
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 both parameters (page, limit) are already fully documented with defaults and bounds. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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: 'List Oh Polly static pages.' The plural 'pages' and the qualifier 'static pages' clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like ohpolly_page (singular), ohpolly_collections, and ohpolly_products, so an agent can tell what this tool covers without opening the schema.
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 usage context is implied: call this when you need a list of Oh Polly's static pages. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over ohpolly_page, ohpolly_collections, or the other brand 'pages' tools, and no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.