Retrieve Amazon's search-box autocomplete suggestions for a keyword prefix and return them as a plain list of suggested search phrases.
Retrieve Amazon search suggestions. Returns Amazon's search-box autocomplete suggestions for a keyword prefix on amazon.com, as a plain list of suggested search phrases such as apple watch bands.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | Yes | Suggestion prefix |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0v1.6.0v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return format (plain list of suggested search phrases) and gives a concrete example, which is useful, but says nothing about result limits, locale/marketplace constraints beyond amazon.com, or rate limiting for what is implicitly a read-only lookup.
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 tightly packed sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the return shape following. Slight redundancy in restating 'Amazon search suggestions' and then 'Amazon's search-box autocomplete suggestions,' but no filler sentences.
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?
For a single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: source domain, input semantics, and the output shape with an example. Nothing an agent requires to call it correctly is missing.
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 parameter already documents itself as 'Suggestion prefix'. The description's 'keyword prefix' phrasing mirrors rather than extends the schema, so the baseline 3 applies — no additional syntax or format detail is added.
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 (Retrieve) and resource (Amazon search-box autocomplete suggestions), anchors the domain to amazon.com, and describes the exact shape of the result (a plain list of suggested phrases). This distinguishes it from both the generic amazon_search sibling and the many other *_suggest tools by naming the source surface 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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; nothing tells the agent to prefer this over amazon_search or why a prefix (rather than a full query) is required. The 'keyword prefix' phrasing hints at autocomplete usage but never states the context or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.