Retrieve normalized static page details for a Rebag storefront page handle, with the storefront URL fixed server-side.
Get a Rebag static page. Returns normalized static page detail for one Rebag (https://shop.rebag.com) page handle. The storefront URL is fixed server-side.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | Page handle |
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 full burden. It adds behavioral context by indicating the storefront URL is fixed server-side and that output is normalized, but it does not disclose other traits like response format, caching, or error behavior. This is adequate but not rich, especially with zero annotation support.
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 redundancies. The primary action is front-loaded, and the fixed-URL note adds necessary context without extra fluff. Every sentence earns its place.
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 tool with a single required parameter and no nested objects, the description covers input, output nature, and a key behavior (fixed URL). It doesn't specify return fields or error conditions, but given the simplicity, it is reasonably complete overall.
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% for the only parameter (handle). The description adds minimal extra meaning by clarifying the handle corresponds to a Rebag page, but it doesn't go beyond the schema's 'Page handle' description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Get a Rebag static page.' It also specifies it returns normalized static page detail for a single page handle, distinguishing it from a listing operation. However, it doesn't explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools like rebag_pages, so it's slightly below a perfect score.
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 rebag_pages or rebag_product. The phrase 'for one Rebag page handle' implies singular use, but it doesn't state exclusions or provide context on choosing between sibling page tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.