Retrieve Steve Madden storefront metadata from the fixed stevemadden.com URL; no URL input is needed.
Get Steve Madden store metadata. Returns storefront metadata for Steve Madden (https://www.stevemadden.com). The storefront URL is fixed, 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 burden. It usefully discloses that the storefront URL is fixed and that no url parameter is accepted, which explains the empty schema, but it says nothing about the nature or shape of the returned metadata or any auth/rate considerations.
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, purpose front-loaded, then scope and the parameter constraint. Every sentence earns its place with 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 0-param, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the definition is minimal but functional. It does not describe what 'storefront metadata' actually contains, leaving the return content vague, which matters more given the absence of an output schema.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description goes slightly further by explaining why there are no parameters (fixed URL, no url accepted), which adds meaning beyond the empty schema.
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+resource ('Get Steve Madden store metadata') and identifies the exact storefront. It clearly differs from product/collection siblings, but never names those siblings or explicitly contrasts scope, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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 use this tool versus stevemadden_product, stevemadden_collections, or the other stevemadden_* tools. The note that no url parameter is accepted is a constraint, not a usage rule for selecting among alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.