Returns SHEIN's search typeahead suggestions for a partial search query. A response with no suggestions for a non-empty word is a valid empty result (no matching phrase), not an error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| word | 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 safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: an empty suggestion set for a non-empty word is a valid result, not an error. This prevents an agent from misinterpreting empty responses as failures. It does not cover rate limits or suggestion caps, so it falls short of 5.
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 tight sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the empty-result caveat follows logically as the second sentence.
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 the return format needn't be explained. For a single-parameter autocomplete tool, the description covers purpose and the key empty-result behavior. It is essentially complete, though a note on when to prefer it over full product search would make it airtight.
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 coverage is 0% with a single 'word' parameter, so the description carries some burden. It does clarify that the input is a partial search query and contrasts it with a 'non-empty word', adding mild semantic value. However, it gives no detail on acceptable formats, length, or language handling, so compensation is only partial.
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: 'Returns SHEIN's search typeahead suggestions for a partial search query.' This clearly identifies it as a typeahead/autocomplete tool, differentiating it implicitly from product-search and keyword siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it is not, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.
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 phrase 'for a partial search query' implies the usage context (mid-typing, partial terms), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives like shein_products_search or shein_search_keywords. Usage is implied rather than stated.
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.
