ocr_identi4Extract key fields from a Korean certified copy of resident registration (deungbon) image via OCR. 주민등록등본 사진에서 주요 정보를 추출해 구조화된 결과와 원문 텍스트(raw_text)를 반환합니다. 정보주체의 동의 등 적법한 처리 근거를 확보한 경우에만 사용하십시오. [호출당 12포인트]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| image_url | Yes | 다운로드 가능한 https URL (허용 형식: image/png, image/jpeg) (최대 50MB) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it read-only (readOnlyHint=true), so the description only needs to add context. It adds that output includes both structured results and raw_text, discloses the 12-point cost, and warns about legal processing grounds. No contradiction with annotations.
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 core is front-loaded and the legal/cost notes are valuable, but the English and Korean sentences are largely redundant and could be merged without losing meaning.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining output. It mentions 'structured results and raw_text' but does not say which fields are extracted or in what structure, leaving an agent to discover this only by calling the tool.
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 already specifies image_url format (https, png/jpeg, max 50MB). The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond saying it is an image of the deungbon, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Extract key fields'), a specific resource ('Korean certified copy of resident registration (deungbon) image'), and the OCR method, which distinguishes it from sibling OCR/identity tools by document type. The Korean sentence reinforces the exact subject matter.
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?
It gives a clear usage context (deungbon OCR) and a legal prerequisite ('only use with legal basis/consent'), but it never tells the agent when not to use this tool or points to alternatives among ocr_identi1-5/identity_document_* siblings.
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.