Skip to main content
Glama
Crawlora-org

Crawlora MCP

Official
by Crawlora-org
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

skims_sitemap_urls

List SKIMS sitemap URLs by type and limit results to fetch product, collection, page, blog, or other URL entries for crawling and indexing.

Instructions

List SKIMS sitemap URLs. Lists URL entries from SKIMS sitemaps, filtered by type (all by default, or products, collections, pages, blogs, agentic_discovery, other). Stops at limit entries (default 50, max 250). Each entry has loc, its type, handle, lastmod, changefreq and, where present, images with caption and title.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoSitemap type. Allowed values: all, products, collections, pages, blogs, agentic_discovery, other
limitNoMaximum URL entries, defaults to 50 and supports up to 250

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.17.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / type / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "all",
+  "products",
+  "collections",
+  "pages",
+  "blogs",
+  "agentic_discovery",
+  "other"
+]
  2. Addedv1.16.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses defaults (all type, 50 limit) and the hard cap (250), confirming a bounded read operation, but says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or whether results are cached/live.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three efficient sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by filtering and output detail. No wasted words, though the opening sentence's 'sitemap URLs' is slightly redundant with the following sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so describing the returned entry fields (loc, type, handle, lastmod, changefreq, images with caption/title) genuinely fills the gap and tells the agent what to expect. Minor omission: no explanation of the tool's relationship to skims_sitemaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description restates the enum values and the limit default/max, which largely duplicates the schema without adding format or semantic nuance beyond it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (SKIMS sitemap URLs) with clear scope. However, it never differentiates from the sibling skims_sitemaps, which an agent would need to distinguish between these two closely-named tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage (fetch sitemap URL entries filtered by type) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or when to prefer skims_sitemaps over this tool. Usefulness is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools