Discover Sportskeeda sitemap sources and return current public sitemaps from its index and robots.txt, then pass a slug to page through complete URL sets.
Discover Sportskeeda sitemap sources. Returns current public sitemaps from Sportskeeda's sitemap index and robots.txt. Pass a returned slug to /sportskeeda/sitemap-items to page through its complete URL set.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source (sitemap index plus robots.txt) and that only 'current public' sitemaps are returned, which is useful context. However it says nothing about freshness, rate limits, or whether the result can be empty, leaving behavioral gaps for a no-annotation 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 purpose, then the return, then the follow-up action. No filler and every sentence adds a distinct piece of information.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description fills in the essentials: what it returns and how to continue to the items tool. It is nearly complete for a zero-parameter discovery tool, though a note on result shape or empty results would make it fully self-contained.
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 there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the schema (empty object) conveys. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.
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 ('Discover Sportskeeda sitemap sources') and immediately clarifies the return ('current public sitemaps from the sitemap index and robots.txt'). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling sportskeeda_sitemap_items by naming that tool as the downstream consumer of a returned slug.
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 gives a concrete next step ('Pass a returned slug to /sportskeeda/sitemap-items to page through its complete URL set'), which effectively tells the agent when this tool is the entry point versus an alternative. It does not state any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., no auth, always scoped to Sportskeeda), so it falls just short of fully explicit routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.