List normalized static pages from the Rebag storefront, using page and limit inputs to return clean JSON.
List Rebag static pages. Returns normalized static pages from Rebag (https://shop.rebag.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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that pages are 'normalized' and that the storefront URL is fixed server-side, which are useful behavioral notes. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as response format, pagination details beyond the schema, or any potential side effects. The description adds some value but is 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 two sentences long, with the primary action stated first. It includes only essential information about the source and the normalization, with no unnecessary fluff. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded.
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?
The tool is relatively simple with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description explains the purpose and notes normalization and fixed URL, but it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus 'rebag_page', and does not describe the structure of the returned pages. For a list operation, this is adequate but could be more helpful with a note about using the singular tool for a specific page.
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 schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (page and limit), including defaults and maximums. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameters; it only restates the action. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description neither enhances nor detracts from parameter understanding.
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 clearly states the action (list) and resource (Rebag static pages), and adds context that it returns normalized static pages from a fixed URL. It distinguishes from the singular sibling 'rebag_page' by using the plural 'pages', but does not explicitly state the difference. Overall, it is specific and not a tautology.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rebag_page' (for a single page) or other listing tools. It does not mention any exclusions or conditions for selection. The only implied usage is that it lists static pages, but no comparative guidance is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.