ss_suggestCompletes a partial search phrase like the Snapp! Shop search box, returning popular terms ranked by score so you can choose wording before searching.
Complete a search phrase the way the site's search box does, most searched first.
Use to find the popular wording before ss_search. Returns terms with a popularity score.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Start of a search phrase. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are ordered by search popularity and the payload contains `terms` with a `score`. It does not discuss limits on how many suggestions are returned, but the added context is real.
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 tight sentences with zero filler; the ordering semantics come first and the sibling routing second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully discloses the return shape (`terms` plus popularity `score`). For a one-parameter read-only tool this is close to complete; only result-count or truncation behavior is left unstated.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Start of a search phrase', so the description only restates the prefix nature of the input via the search-box analogy. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the work.
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 (complete a phrase) and resource (search phrase/autocomplete), plus the ordering rule 'most searched first'. This is clearly distinct from ss_search, which returns actual results rather than phrase completions.
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?
'Use to find the popular wording before ss_search' names the sibling alternative and the sequencing condition that selects it. It stops short of stating when not to bother (e.g., when the user already has exact wording), so it is strong but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.