list_suggestionsList search suggestions / reader search analytics (what readers searched for). KnowledgeOwl API: GET /suggest.json. Returns { valid, page_stats, data:[...] }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| _page | No | KnowledgeOwl pagination page number, 1-based. | |
| params | No | Additional documented query-string filters/operators to send verbatim (merged with the typed params above). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it identifies the underlying KnowledgeOwl API endpoint (GET /suggest.json) and the top-level response shape. This gives the agent concrete expectations about the operation without contradicting the annotations.
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?
The description is concise and front-loaded: two sentences capture the tool's purpose, data interpretation, API endpoint, and response shape. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant fluff.
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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the endpoint and return structure. The meaning of specific response fields like `valid` and `page_stats` is not elaborated, but the core purpose and response skeleton are clear enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents both `_page` and `params`. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable since the schema already carries that burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List search suggestions / reader search analytics', then clarifies what the data means ('what readers searched for'). This clearly distinguishes it from other list_* siblings like list_synonyms or list_tags by focusing on reader search behavior rather than generic content.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you need reader search analytics or to see what readers searched for. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a perfect score, but the intended use case is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting a specific resource (article, category, glossary, etc.) and action (create, get, list, update). There is no ambiguity or overlap between tool names.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: create_X, get_X, list_X, update_X. The exception 'knowledgeowl_request' is a utility escape hatch, clearly marked, and does not break the overall pattern.
At 24 tools, the set is slightly above the typical 3-15 range but still well-scoped for a knowledge base API covering many resources. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, and no tools are redundant.
The tool set lacks delete operations for all resources, and update operations are only available for articles and categories. Missing get tools for glossary terms, snippets, and other resources, though list tools are provided. This leaves significant gaps in lifecycle coverage.