Fetches child sitemap URLs from Oh Polly's /sitemap.xml index and labels each with its inferred sitemap type.
List Oh Polly sitemaps. Returns child sitemap URLs from Oh Polly's (https://www.ohpolly.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 behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool fetches the /sitemap.xml index, returns child sitemap URLs, infers sitemap types, and that the storefront URL is fixed server-side. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare 'List sitemaps' statement, though it does not mention safety, rate limits, or error behavior.
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, all informative. Purpose is front-loaded, and the fixed-URL detail is a valuable addition. No wasted words or 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, no-output-schema tool, the description fully covers the essential details: what it lists, where it gets the data, what it returns, and the fixed source URL. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly without further guidance.
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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the input. The description adds the useful note that the storefront URL is fixed server-side, confirming no parameter is needed. Baseline for zero params is 4, and the description adds no contradictory information.
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'), names the resource ('Oh Polly sitemaps'), and explains the output ('child sitemap URLs from /sitemap.xml index with inferred sitemap types'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling ohpolly_sitemap_urls, which presumably lists page URLs rather than sitemap index entries.
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: use this tool to get the list of Oh Polly child sitemaps, with the storefront URL fixed server-side. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the first sentence and return description imply the intended use case well enough for an agent to select it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.