Retrieve normalized static pages from Rothy's storefront; control page and limit to collect up to 250 entries for site mapping or content indexing.
List Rothy's static pages. Returns normalized static pages from Rothy's (https://www.rothys.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.
v1.16.0Does 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 usefully notes that results are normalized and that the storefront URL is fixed server-side, which prevents an agent from trying to supply a URL. However, it does not describe pagination behavior, response shape, rate limits, or any other operational traits, leaving a meaningful gap.
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 short and front-loaded with the core action. There is minor redundancy between 'List Rothy's static pages' and 'Returns normalized static pages from Rothy's', but overall it is appropriately sized and easy to scan.
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 simple paginated list tool, the description is mostly adequate: it names the resource, notes normalization, and clarifies the fixed URL. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not explain what fields a 'static page' contains or how pagination manifests in the response, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
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 input schema already fully documents both parameters (page and limit) with defaults and limits, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. It adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 a specific action ('List') and resource ('Rothy's static pages'), and adds that results are normalized. It is specific enough to understand the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling rothys_page, so it falls short of a 5.
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 rothys_page, rothys_sitemap_urls, or rothys_products. It gives no context about which scenario warrants this tool, so an agent must infer usage from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.