Retrieve Bilibili search suggestions for partial text queries. Returns matching autocomplete terms as clean JSON, or an empty list when nothing matches.
Get Bilibili search suggestions. Returns Bilibili search-box query suggestions for partial text. An empty suggestion list is a valid response when nothing matches.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Partial search text |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.16.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that an empty suggestion list is a valid response when nothing matches, which is a useful edge-case behavior. However, it does not mention other potential behaviors like rate limits or error handling, but for a simple read-only autocomplete, this is reasonably transparent.
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?
The description is two sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose and adding the important empty-list behavior. It is efficiently structured and easy to parse.
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 autocomplete tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the input type, and a key edge case (empty list). It does not specify the exact structure of suggestions (e.g., list of strings vs. objects), but the description implies a list and the tool's simplicity makes this acceptable. Overall, an agent has enough information to call it correctly.
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 schema already describes the 'q' parameter as 'Partial search text' with 100% coverage. The description repeats this in the main text ('for partial text') without adding new semantic details such as format, length constraints, or examples. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Get Bilibili search suggestions' and specifies it returns search-box query suggestions for partial text. This precisely distinguishes it from other Bilibili tools like home, ranking, and popular pages, and clearly conveys its autocomplete purpose.
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 description implies usage for autocomplete scenarios by mentioning 'partial text', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., full search or other bilibili tools). There is no mention of alternative tools or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.