Retrieve YOOX designer slugs filtered by department (women, men, or kids). Use each returned slug as a valid input for yoox-search.
List YOOX designers. Returns the department-scoped designer slugs discovered from YOOX navigation. Every returned slug is valid for yoox-search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| department | Yes | Department |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the output is department-scoped slugs discovered from YOOX navigation and adds a useful guarantee that every slug is valid for yoox-search. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or empty-result behavior, but the read-only listing nature is clear.
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?
Two sentences with no filler: the first states the action and output, the second adds a downstream compatibility guarantee. The key information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, how it is scoped, and how the results connect to yoox-search. It is nearly complete, though it does not describe the response envelope, sorting, or error behavior.
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 single required parameter is fully covered by the schema: it is a required enum with values women/men/kids and a description. The description adds the phrase 'department-scoped,' but does not need to explain the parameter further since schema coverage is 100%.
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?
Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List YOOX designers.' It further specifies that the output is department-scoped designer slugs and that each slug is valid for yoox-search, which clearly separates this tool from sibling tools like yoox_categories, yoox_product, and yoox_search.
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 makes the intended use clear: call it to obtain department-scoped designer slugs, and use the slugs with yoox-search. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use cases or name alternative tools such as yoox_categories, so it falls short of full exclusionary guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.