cdisc-library-mcp-server

search.suggest

Suggest search terms to find relevant CDISC Library content. Enter a query to receive term suggestions that refine search results.

Instructions

Suggest search terms across CDISC Library.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "search.suggest"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	Yes
`top`	No
`select`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the tool's name. There are no annotations to compensate, so the agent gains no insight into how suggestions are generated, any restrictions, or side effects. This is a critical gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It wastes no words but fails to provide essential details, making it inadequate for effective tool understanding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description is entirely incomplete. It does not convey return values, parameter behavior, or usage context, leaving the agent ill-equipped to use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description adds no meaning to the three parameters ('q', 'top', 'select'). The agent receives no explanation of their purposes or expected values, forcing reliance solely on parameter names, which are insufficient.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'suggest' and the resource 'search terms across CDISC Library', effectively conveying the main function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'search.query', leaving a slight ambiguity. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the related 'search.query' tool. There are no hints about context-specific usage or exclusions, leaving the AI agent without decision support.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.