Generate up to 10 Bilibili search autocomplete suggestions from a partial term, ignoring symbols like + or #, to help find related keywords.
B 站搜索框的联想词，最多 10 条。
平台联想时会忽略 + # 等符号。
(search suggestions, autocomplete, related keywords)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | Yes | 已输入的关键词，可以只是开头几个字。 | |
| description | Yes | 格式为 工具名:目的。 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| elapsed_s | No | ||
| suggestions | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.12.1Input schema / properties / descriptionAdded value: +{
+ "description": "格式为 工具名:目的。",
+ "title": "Description",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "term"
-]New value: +[
+ "description",
+ "term"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: a hard cap of 10 results and the caveat that symbols like + and # are ignored during suggestion. It does not discuss rate limits or error behavior, but the added constraints are meaningful.
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 short sentences plus a synonym tag; the core purpose is front-loaded and nothing is redundant. It is well-sized for a simple lookup tool.
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-value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers purpose, result limit, and a notable input caveat. The main gap is the absence of routing guidance relative to sibling search/feed tools, but otherwise it is complete for this tool's complexity.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both 'term' and 'description'. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., partial-word behavior or the odd '工具名:目的' format for description), so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 specific resource and behavior: 'B站搜索框的联想词' (Bilibili search-box autocomplete), capped at 10 results. The parenthetical synonyms ('search suggestions, autocomplete, related keywords') reinforce the concept. It is distinguishable from the sibling search_videos, though it never names that 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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The synonym list aids keyword matching but does not tell an agent when to pick this over search_videos or get_feed. No conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.