Lists PSA Store sitemap child URLs from the /sitemap.xml index with inferred sitemap types for structured web-data retrieval.
List PSA Store sitemaps. Returns child sitemap URLs from the PSA Team Store's (https://store.psacard.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.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal that the storefront URL is fixed server-side and that the output is child sitemap URLs with inferred types, but it does not address authentication, rate limits, or output format. This is acceptable for a simple read-only list tool but not comprehensive.
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 three short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded ('List PSA Store sitemaps'), followed by concrete details about the index and the fixed URL. Every sentence adds 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 parameterless tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides sufficient operational detail: the source index, the return type, and the storefront constraint. It could clarify what 'inferred sitemap types' means or outline any limits, but the core information an agent needs is present.
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 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that the storefront URL is fixed server-side, which directly clarifies why no URL parameter exists and what the tool always targets.
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 action ('List PSA Store sitemaps') and the exact output: child sitemap URLs from the /sitemap.xml index with inferred sitemap types. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like psastore_sitemap_urls by describing the source and inferred type behavior.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as psastore_sitemap_urls or psastore_store. The note that the storefront URL is fixed server-side implies no URL parameter is needed, but the description does not mention when-not-to-use or name sibling alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.