List all Zalando country storefronts and domains supported by search, category, and product tools, helping you set the required market parameter correctly.
List supported Zalando country storefronts. Returns the Zalando country storefronts currently supported by the required market parameter on zalando-search, zalando-category, and zalando-product, with each market's domain. Static metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key traits: it returns a list of country storefronts with domains and is 'static metadata,' implying a safe, read-only, non-mutating operation. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a zero-parameter metadata listing this is adequate.
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 tightly written sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause adds useful information (what it returns, who consumes it, that it is static).
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 simple, zero-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers purpose, return content ('each market's domain'), and static nature. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact shape of each returned market object, but nothing critical is missing.
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 has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description's discussion of the 'market parameter' belongs to sibling tools, not this one, and no parameter semantics are needed here.
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 ('List supported Zalando country storefronts') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the zalando-search, zalando-category, and zalando-product tools whose market parameter it serves. An agent can immediately tell this is a metadata helper, not a search or product tool.
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?
Explicitly ties the tool to the 'required market parameter' on three sibling tools, which implies when to use it: to discover valid market values. No alternatives are named (there are none for this purpose), but the context is clear enough for correct invocation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.