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 | Partial search query |
| 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.
Input schema / properties / word / descriptionAdded value: +"Partial search query"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the burden is lighter. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: a non-empty query with no suggestions is a valid empty result, not an error. This preempts a common agent misread but does not cover rate limits or response shape.
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, zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded and the empty-result caveat follows immediately, both earning their 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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed. Combined with the annotations and the empty-result note, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only the interchangeable-with-which-full-search-tool routing is absent.
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 100% and the single 'word' parameter is already documented as 'Partial search query'. The description restates that same meaning ('partial search query') without adding format, length, or language guidance, so 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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Returns SHEIN's search typeahead suggestions') and specifies the input ('partial search query'), which distinguishes it from the sibling shein_products_search full-search tool. It doesn't explicitly name that sibling, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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 'typeahead suggestions for a partial search query' implies the use case (autocomplete as the user types) but gives no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives like shein_products_search or shein_search_keywords. Usage is left 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.