suggest_long_tailExpand a seed phrase into long-tail Etsy keyword variants using modifiers and product attributes, then flag which fit as tags.
Expand a seed phrase into long-tail variants using proven Etsy modifiers (digital or physical) and your attributes, flagging which fit as tags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max | No | ||
| seed | Yes | ||
| digital | No | ||
| attributes | No | ||
| extra_modifiers | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context — variant generation via proven Etsy modifiers, a digital/physical branch, and flagging of tag-suitable results — but says nothing about ordering, volume, or output shape.
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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the core action ('Expand a seed phrase') and packs in modifiers, attributes, and the tag-flagging outcome without padding. Efficient and free of waste.
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 read-only suggestion tool with no output schema, the description should hint at what comes back; 'flagging which fit as tags' gives a partial clue but does not describe the result shape or how many variants are produced. Adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for a 5-param tool with a nested object.
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?
Top-level schema description coverage is 0%, with only a few nested attribute fields carrying inline examples. The description compensates partially by signaling the digital/physical choice and the 'attributes' input, but leaves max and extra_modifiers entirely unaddressed, so the gap is only half filled.
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 and resource ('expand a seed phrase into long-tail variants') and names the domain (Etsy modifiers) plus the tagging angle. It's clear what it does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with generate_tags or cluster_keywords, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling alternatives (generate_tags, cluster_keywords) it overlaps with. Usage must be inferred entirely from the purpose sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.