jv_suggestAutocomplete job titles as Jobvision's search box does, surfacing commonly used wording before you search job ads.
Autocomplete job titles the way Jobvision's search box does, most used first.
Use to find the wording ads actually use before calling jv_search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | Yes | Start of a job title, e.g. pyth or حساب. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: results are ordered by usage frequency and the intent is autocomplete-style prefix matching. Return shape and result count are not covered, keeping it short of a 5.
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 with zero waste; the core behavior and result ordering come first, followed by the usage note pointing at jv_search.
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 one-parameter autocomplete tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description supplies what the structured fields cannot: prefix intent and usage ordering. It doesn't describe the returned suggestions' shape, though that is minor for this 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% and the schema already documents the single keyword parameter with an example ('pyth or حساب'). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Autocomplete job titles') plus the ordering behavior ('most used first'), and explicitly contrasts with jv_search, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening a schema.
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?
Gives a clear use case with a named alternative: use this to discover the wording ads actually use before calling jv_search. There are no explicit when-not conditions, but the sequencing guidance is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.