Fetch normalized static page details for a Rothy's storefront URL by providing a page handle.
Get a Rothy's static page. Returns normalized static page detail for one Rothy's (https://www.rothys.com) page handle. The storefront URL is fixed server-side.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| handle | Yes | Page handle |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the response is a normalized static page detail and that the base URL is fixed server-side, and 'Get' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not describe the response structure, error behavior, or the meaning of 'normalized'.
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 short sentences with the main action front-loaded. The brand URL is slightly redundant given the tool name, but there is no filler and every sentence carries information.
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 single-parameter fetch tool, the core invocation is clear. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not say what fields the normalized detail includes, what format the handle should take, or what happens if a handle is invalid or missing. These gaps are acceptable for a simple tool but not negligible.
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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description is simply 'Page handle', so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying that the storefront URL is fixed server-side, which tells the agent the handle is a pure page identifier rather than a full URL, and that only this one parameter is needed.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Rothy's static page'), and specifies it returns normalized static page detail for a single page handle. The singular scope ('one ... page handle') and fixed server-side URL clarify what the tool does, though it does not explicitly discuss sibling tools like rothys_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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rothys_pages, rothys_collections, or rothys_product. The only usage-relevant note is that the storefront URL is fixed server-side, which is a request-shaping detail rather than selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.