wiki_suggestAutocomplete wiki page titles as you type by supplying a partial search term, helping users find the right WikiPeatia article quickly.
Autocomplete wiki page titles while typing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Partial search term (e.g. 'thyr', 'asp') |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose matching semantics (prefix vs substring vs fuzzy), case sensitivity, result limits, or whether it hits the wiki index versus a full-text index. Only the trivial fact that it is a suggestion endpoint is conveyed.
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?
One clean sentence with no waste and the purpose front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for the behavioral questions an agent may have, but nothing is padding.
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 explained, and the tool is simple with one fully documented parameter. The remaining gap is routing: with ~30 siblings including wiki_search, the description should say when this autocomplete beats a real search.
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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), including examples ('thyr', 'asp'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the notion that the query is a partial in-progress string, which is marginal value beyond the schema.
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: autocomplete of wiki page titles. It implies a title-only, incremental response, which differentiates it from wiki_search, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
"While typing" hints at a typeahead context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of wiki_search or corpus_suggest as alternative or complementary tools. The agent must infer that this is for incomplete-query title lookup only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.