List all child sitemaps in Rebag's sitemap index, returning each URL and its type, including products, collections, pages, blogs, or other.
List Rebag sitemaps. Lists the child sitemaps in Rebag's sitemap index. Each entry has its loc and a type of products, collections, pages, blogs, agentic_discovery or other, worked out from the sitemap URL. The endpoint takes no parameters.
| 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 burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (each entry has `loc` and a `type`) and confirms the tool takes no parameters, but it says nothing about read-only status, auth, rate limits, or whether the list is static or changes over time.
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?
Front-loaded and free of filler, but the opening 'List Rebag sitemaps' is immediately restated by 'Lists the child sitemaps in Rebag's sitemap index', a minor redundancy. The enum detail is the highest-value content and is well placed.
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?
With no output schema, the description compensates well by documenting the return fields and the possible `type` values. For a no-param listing tool it is nearly complete, though it omits how many entries or how often the index changes.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the description correctly confirms 'takes no parameters'. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless tool.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List Rebag sitemaps') and clarifies it enumerates the child sitemaps of the sitemap index, which is precise. However, it never distinguishes itself from the closely related sibling rebag_sitemap_urls, so an agent must still infer the boundary between the two.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The only usable signal is the implicit 'endpoint takes no parameters' hint, which does not tell the agent when to prefer this over rebag_sitemap_urls or rebag_search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.