J.Crew or J.Crew Factory's own search-box suggestions (typeahead) for a partial query (select with site, default jcrew): suggested search phrases, each with its own live total result count on the search index. Not product data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The tool result payload (shape varies per tool; see each tool's docs resource). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: this is typeahead (partial-query) input, results carry live total result counts, and the output is not product data.
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?
A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the tool's identity and scope. It is information-rich with little waste, though slightly packed with parentheticals.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, and the description still sketches the return shape (phrases plus counts). For a two-parameter typeahead tool this is essentially complete.
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?
With schema coverage at 0%, the description carries the burden and does compensate: it explains 'query' is a partial string and that 'site' selects between J.Crew and J.Crew Factory with a default of jcrew. Only the exact accepted site values are left implicit.
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: search-box typeahead suggestions for a partial query, and returns suggested phrases each with a live result count. The closing 'Not product data' cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling jcrew_product/jcrew_search tools.
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?
Implies usage via 'for a partial query' and 'select with site, default jcrew', which tells the agent this is an autocomplete-style lookup. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this over jcrew_search or when it is inappropriate, leaving the routing to inference.
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.
