Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

oldnavy_search

Search product listings across Old Navy, Gap, Banana Republic, and Athleta storefronts by keyword. Returns pricing, review scores, and purchasable color variants for each matched item.

Instructions

Search Old Navy, Gap, Banana Republic, or Athleta products. Searches product listings across Old Navy, Gap, Banana Republic, and Athleta -- select the storefront with the brand parameter (on for Old Navy, gap for Gap, br for Banana Republic, at for Athleta; defaults to on). Returns product summaries with pricing, review scores, and every purchasable color variant. This search is best-effort relevance, not a guaranteed keyword match: for an obscure or nonsense keyword the upstream search index falls back to its own recommended results instead of returning an empty list, and there is currently no reliable signal in the response to distinguish a true keyword match from that fallback behavior.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoOne-based page
brandNoStorefront to search
keywordYesSearch keyword

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.17.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / brand / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "on",
+  "gap",
+  "br",
+  "at"
+]
  2. Addedv1.14.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the multi-brand scope, that results include pricing, review scores, and every purchasable color variant, and candidly warns that obscure keywords silently fall back to recommended results with no signal to detect it. It omits auth/rate-limit and pagination behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded, but the brand list is redundantly stated twice (sentence one and again in sentence two), wasting space. The behavioral caveat is well placed at the end, but the duplication keeps it from being tightly structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully summarizes the return shape (product summaries with pricing, review scores, color variants) and flags the fallback quirk. Combined with the enum decoding, this is nearly complete; only pagination behavior across the `page` param is left unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by decoding the brand enum (`on`/`gap`/`br`/`at`) and stating the default of `on`, which the schema's 'Storefront to search' does not. It does not elaborate on page or keyword beyond the schema, but the enum mapping exceeds the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb (Search) and resource (product listings across Old Navy/Gap/Banana Republic/Athleta) and is immediately distinguishable from generic tools. However, it never differentiates itself from the many close siblings such as oldnavy_product, oldnavy_category, or oldnavy_categories, so an agent must infer the boundary. Clear purpose, but no sibling routing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explains how to select a storefront via the brand parameter and warns about the best-effort fallback, which implies when the tool is useful. But it gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., oldnavy_product for a known item, oldnavy_categories for browsing), leaving usage context to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools