List static pages from the PSA Team Store. Fetch normalized storefront pages with configurable pagination and limits.
List PSA Store static pages. Returns normalized static pages from the PSA Team Store (https://store.psacard.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.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: 'Returns normalized static pages' and 'The storefront URL is fixed server-side.' However, it does not disclose response format, error behavior, rate limits, or whether any authentication is needed, though 'List' implies a read-only operation.
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?
The description is two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, then adds the source URL and a key behavioral note about the fixed server-side URL. Every sentence contributes value.
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 simple list endpoint with fully described parameters, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks an explanation of the returned page structure (no output schema exists), and it does not mention when to prefer sibling tools like psastore_page. These are clear gaps for an agent deciding how to use and route results.
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 the page and limit parameters are already fully documented. The description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with the baseline of 3.
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') and resource ('PSA Store static pages'), making the action clear. It also clarifies the source domain with the store URL. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling psastore_page, leaving the distinction to inference from the plural 'pages'.
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 phrasing 'List PSA Store static pages' implies when to use it: when a list of static pages is needed. However, there is no mention of alternatives such as psastore_page or psastore_product, nor any exclusions or conditions to guide selection among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.