cluster_keywordsGroup raw Etsy keywords into shared-term themes, pick a primary phrase per theme, and flag tag-ready phrases under 20 characters.
Group a raw keyword list (e.g. from Etsy search autocomplete, eRank or your Etsy Stats export) into themes by shared terms, pick a primary phrase per theme and flag tag-ready (≤20 char) phrases.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keywords | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context by disclosing the processing outcome: themes are formed by shared terms, one primary phrase is selected per theme, and phrases are flagged tag-ready at the ≤20-character threshold.
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?
A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the core action and followed by outputs and input examples. No filler, and the ≤20 char rule is stated inline where it is needed.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must convey return shape; it does so at a high level (themes, primary phrase, tag-ready flags). Limits on input size and the exact structure of each theme are not described, which leaves a small gap for a tool with a single structured parameter.
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?
With one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the semantic burden and does so reasonably: it specifies that the input should be a raw keyword list and names typical sources. It does not restate the 500-item / 80-character constraints, but it adds meaning beyond the array-of-strings schema.
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 (group/cluster) and resource (raw keyword list) plus the concrete outputs: themes by shared terms, a primary phrase per theme, and tag-ready flags. The framing as an operation over a user-supplied list clearly separates it from the generate_* siblings, which create content from scratch.
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?
Input provenance examples (Etsy autocomplete, eRank, Etsy Stats export) imply the situation in which to use it, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and no mention of when to prefer suggest_long_tail or generate_tags instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.