google_suggestFetch Google autocomplete suggestions for any query to discover related search terms and expand keyword research without getting blocked.
Google autocomplete suggestions (no block).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hl | No | en | |
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. '(no block)' is vague and may hint at a behavioral trait, but it does not clarify read-only status, auth needs, rate limits, or response behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 very short and front-loaded with no filler. However, the parenthetical '(no block)' is unclear and the overall phrase is too terse to be truly helpful given the lack of structured context.
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. Still, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameter meanings and basic behavior, which it does not. It is incomplete for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning for either parameter. It does not explain the required 'query' parameter or the optional 'hl' language parameter, leaving the agent with only the schema's bare type information.
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 the resource clearly: 'Google autocomplete suggestions.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings like google_search and google_web_search by focusing on autocomplete rather than search results. However, it lacks a specific verb and the '(no block)' qualifier is cryptic, so it is not fully unambiguous.
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 guidance or alternatives are provided. The agent can infer that this tool returns autocomplete suggestions, but there is no explicit context for selecting it over other search-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.