Fetches paginated SKIMS collections. Returns normalized JSON for e-commerce or data analysis.
List SKIMS collections. Returns normalized 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully discloses that the storefront URL is fixed server-side and that empty result pages return 200 with an empty array. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or the meaning of 'normalized,' leaving some ambiguity.
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 three concise sentences, each providing distinct value: the action, the source, and an edge-case behavior. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and contains no filler.
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 list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, source, URL fixedness, and empty-page handling. It is nearly complete, though a brief note that this is a read-only operation would strengthen it.
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 the schema already documents page and limit. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond that, though it indirectly explains the absence of a URL parameter by noting the storefront URL is fixed server-side.
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 and resource: 'List SKIMS collections.' It clearly identifies the brand and resource type, which distinguishes it from other brands' collection tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like skims_collection_products, so it falls short of full sibling discrimination.
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. There is no mention of using skims_collection_products for products within a collection or any other routing context. Only the tool's own behavior is described, with no exclusions or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.