List all child sitemaps from Rothy's sitemap index, returning each URL and its inferred type (products, collections, pages, blogs, or other). No parameters required.
List Rothy's sitemaps. Lists the child sitemaps in Rothy's sitemap index, each with its loc and a type (products, collections, pages, blogs, agentic_discovery or other) inferred from the URL. No parameters are needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does describe the return shape (each child sitemap's loc and inferred type) which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about whether this is read-only in explicit terms, auth requirements, pagination, or error behavior for a non-existent index.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the type enumeration earns its place because there is no output schema to document those values. Minor redundancy between 'List Rothy's sitemaps' and the following sentence that restates the same action.
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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by naming the returned fields and enumerating the type values. It is essentially complete for calling the tool, though it leaves the relationship to rothys_sitemap_urls unspecified.
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?
Zero parameters, which is the baseline 4. The description also affirmatively states 'No parameters are needed,' removing any doubt the agent might otherwise have about required inputs.
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+resource ('List Rothy's sitemaps') and clarifies it returns the child sitemaps in the sitemap index. This is distinct work from siblings like rothys_sitemap_urls, but the description never names that sibling, so the agent must infer the split.
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?
Usage is only implied: the definition makes clear no parameters are needed and what the output looks like, from which an agent can infer when to call it. It never states when to prefer this over rothys_sitemap_urls or the other store-navigation siblings, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.