Fetch RetailMeNot search suggestions for a store or brand term, returning matching stores, domains, and cash-back offers.
Get RetailMeNot search suggestions. Returns RetailMeNot's search-box suggestions for a free-text term: matching stores (with domains usable with /retailmenot/store) and cash-back offers. Group names are returned as data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | Yes | Store or brand search term |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.17.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It helpfully discloses the return content (matching stores with domains, cash-back offers, group names as data), which is valuable given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about result limits, rate limits, or empty-result behavior for a read-only suggestion endpoint.
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?
Three compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the return contents and the domain-usage note. No filler, though the final sentence about group names could be trimmed without loss.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description compensates reasonably by enumerating what comes back. It falls short only on edge behaviors (limits, empty results) that an agent might need.
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 there is a single term parameter the schema already documents as 'Store or brand search term.' The description only restates this as a 'free-text term' without adding format, matching behavior, or prefix requirements, so the 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 (Get) and resource (RetailMeNot search suggestions), then narrows the scope to search-box suggestions for a free-text term. An agent can distinguish this autocomplete tool from siblings like retailmenot_store or retailmenot_cashback, though it doesn't name a 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?
It implies a workflow by noting the returned domains are 'usable with /retailmenot/store,' which hints at the follow-up tool, but it never says when to choose this over a direct store lookup or which term format works best. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.