digikala-mcp

Autocomplete

autocomplete

Read-only

Suggest search phrases for a given market and partial query to help users find products on Digikala.

Instructions

Suggest search phrases. Currently verified only for Digikala.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "market": "<market>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "autocomplete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes
`market`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`market`	Yes
`suggestions`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does 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 a genuine reliability caveat ('verified only for Digikala') that the structured fields don't convey, but says nothing about rate limits, latency, or result quality.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Efficient, though extremely terse for a tool whose parameters are otherwise undocumented.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, with both required parameters at 0% schema coverage, the definition leaves the agent guessing what to pass and how this differs from running a real search.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it never explains what 'query' should contain or that 'market' scopes the suggestion source. It only loosely implies Digikala maps to market via the verification note.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: it suggests search phrases, which is clearly distinct from sibling search_products (which executes searches). It doesn't explicitly name that sibling, but the purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance relative to the 38 siblings, particularly search_products or get_trend_snapshot. The 'verified only for Digikala' note is a coverage caveat, not usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server