List collections from the SKIMS storefront using page and limit parameters to browse catalog data and return structured JSON.
List SKIMS collections. Returns collections from SKIMS (https://skims.com). The storefront URL is fixed server-side. Valid empty result pages return 200 with an empty collections array.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | 1-based page, defaults to 1 | |
| limit | No | Maximum collections, 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, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the storefront URL is fixed server-side and that empty result pages return HTTP 200 with an empty collections array, which is genuine edge-case context. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and ordering of results, so it is helpful but incomplete.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the operational caveats. No filler or repetition.
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 with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the fixed storefront constraint, and the empty-page behavior, which is enough to call it correctly. It could be slightly more complete by noting ordering or what a collection contains.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both page and limit already have clear semantics (1-based, defaults, max 250) in the schema. The description adds nothing about pagination defaults or limits, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb (List) plus resource (SKIMS collections) and identifies the data source (skims.com), which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like skims_products or skims_pages. It does not, however, explicitly compare itself against those siblings, 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?
There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives such as skims_collection_products or skims_products, nor any stated prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.