Retrieve storefront metadata for SKIMS from the fixed skims.com storefront URL, returning structured store details without needing any URL or input parameters.
Get SKIMS store metadata. Returns storefront metadata for SKIMS (https://skims.com). The storefront URL is fixed server-side, so no url parameter is accepted.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the storefront URL is fixed server-side, which is real behavioral context, but it says nothing about what the metadata contains, caching, or auth needs for this simple read tool.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Slightly redundant in restating 'metadata' as 'storefront metadata', but no padding.
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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns and the fixed-URL constraint. Nothing critical is missing, though a hint of what storefront metadata includes would help.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description additionally explains why the obvious parameter (url) is absent, which is more than the empty schema conveys.
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 and resource ('Get SKIMS store metadata') and clarifies the return is storefront metadata for skims.com. It is clear on its own but does not differentiate from nearby siblings like skims_page, skims_collections, or skims_sitemaps, which an agent must choose between.
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 versus the many skims_* siblings (skims_page, skims_collections, skims_products). The note that no url parameter is accepted is a parameter constraint, not usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.