List Rothy's child sitemap URLs from its /sitemap.xml index, including inferred sitemap types, to map site structure and locate product, collection, and content pages.
List Rothy's sitemaps. Returns child sitemap URLs from Rothy's's (https://www.rothys.com) /sitemap.xml index with inferred sitemap types. The storefront URL is fixed server-side.
| 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 state that the storefront URL is fixed server-side and that the tool returns child sitemap URLs with inferred types, which signals a deterministic, read-only list operation. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, error behavior, freshness, or any limits.
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?
Two concise sentences, each earning its place. The action is front-loaded, and the supporting details (source URL, fixed URL, inferred types) are tightly packed. The typo 'Rothy's's' is negligible.
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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the source and return content: child sitemap URLs plus inferred sitemap types. It leaves minor ambiguity about the exact format of 'inferred sitemap types' and does not mention pagination or limits, but these are low-stakes for a simple sitemap listing.
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?
There are zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the description starts at baseline 4. It adds meaning by noting the storefront URL is fixed server-side, confirming that no input is required.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List Rothy's sitemaps') and clarifies exactly what is returned: child sitemap URLs from the /sitemap.xml index with inferred types. This differentiates it from sibling rothys_sitemap_urls, which presumably targets URLs within a given sitemap.
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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives like rothys_sitemap_urls or other brand sitemap tools. The agent must infer usage from the name and the sibling list; there is no explicit when/when-not or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.