suggest_areasSuggest hh.ru regions by name prefix and return matching area IDs; use area_id to narrow to child regions or include_parent to add the parent.
Suggest hh.ru regions (areas) by name prefix; returns matching areas with ids. area_id narrows the search to children of a given region, include_parent=true adds the parent region to the response.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| area_id | No | ||
| include_parent | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the matching rule (name prefix), what is returned (areas with ids), and the effect of both optional parameters, but says nothing about result limits, ordering, empty results, or authentication requirements.
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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the parameter behaviors trailing in a logical order. The semicolon-chained clauses are dense but every clause carries 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?
For a simple three-parameter suggest tool with no output schema, the essentials (search rule, returned ids, parameter effects) are covered. Missing are result count behavior, ordering, and any hint about choosing between this and its sibling suggest/dict area tools.
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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: 'text' is defined as a name prefix, 'area_id' as narrowing to children of a region, and 'include_parent=true' as adding the parent region. It adds real meaning beyond bare type/default declarations, though it doesn't note that the parameters are optional or nullable.
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?
The description names a specific verb and resource ('Suggest hh.ru regions (areas) by name prefix') and states the return shape ('matching areas with ids'). It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as suggest_area_leaves or dict_areas, which keeps it below a 5.
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?
The prefix-search framing implies autocomplete-style use, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (suggest_area_leaves for leaf-only regions, dict_areas for a full dictionary). Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.