Search a tenant's catalog and knowledge surface for products, collections, content, and policies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | Natural-language or keyword search query | |
| tenant | Yes | Merchant domain, e.g. demo.suggestapi.com | |
| retrieval_mode | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states what is searched. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, how retrieval_mode changes results, pagination/limit behavior, or what the response contains, leaving important behavioral traits undisclosed.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is concise and easy to parse, though its brevity comes at the cost of omitting behavioral and parameter details.
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?
Given four parameters, an enum that changes behavior, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too thin for confident invocation. An agent would not know how retrieval_mode affects behavior, what limit controls, or what results are returned.
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 descriptions cover query and tenant, but limit and retrieval_mode have no schema descriptions and the tool description adds no meaning for them. Because schema coverage is only 50%, the description needed to compensate, especially for the retrieval_mode enum, but it does not.
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 ('Search') and a bounded resource ('a tenant's catalog and knowledge surface'), and enumerates the content types covered. It clearly conveys the operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like product_lookup or compare.
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 scope of the description implies this is for cross-type lookup across a tenant's catalog and knowledge surface. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like product_lookup or compare, leaving some selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct role: search is broad discovery, recommend generates recommendations, product_lookup retrieves a single record, and compare evaluates multiple objects. The only meaningful overlap is between search and recommend, but their descriptions make the different return purposes clear.
Three tools use clear single-word verb names (compare, recommend, search), while product_lookup combines a noun and verb. This is a minor structural inconsistency rather than a chaotic mix, and all names are instantly understandable.
Four tools form a compact, well-scoped set for a suggestion and discovery API. Each tool covers a distinct user intent without redundancy or unnecessary surface area.
The tool set covers the core query workflows for the domain: locate items, retrieve a canonical record, get recommendations, and compare options. Management features are absent but appear outside the read-only SuggestAPI scope, so there are no meaningful gaps for an agent.