name_rrn_authVerify that a Korean name and resident registration number (RRN) match a real registered person. 성명과 주민등록번호의 일치 여부(실명 존재 여부)를 확인합니다. name, rrn1(앞 6자리), rrn2(뒤 7자리)를 모두 입력해야 합니다. 정보주체의 동의 등 적법한 처리 근거를 확보한 경우에만 사용하십시오. [호출당 50포인트]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | 한글 성명 | |
| rrn1 | Yes | 주민등록번호 앞 6자리 숫자 | |
| rrn2 | Yes | 주민등록번호 뒤 7자리 숫자 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and open-world, and the description adds meaningful context: the per-call 50-point cost and the requirement for a legal basis. It does not detail the exact return format, but the read-only annotation lowers the burden and the added constraints are useful.
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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose. The English and Korean sentences largely duplicate each other, which is slightly redundant, but each part still adds clarity for the intended audience and includes cost and legal-use information in few words.
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 read-only verification tool, the description covers the purpose, mandatory inputs, legal constraint, and cost. It does not specify the exact success/failure return shape, but this is partially mitigated by the read-only/open-world annotations and the straightforward nature of the operation.
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 100%, so the schema already documents name, rrn1, and rrn2. The description reinforces that all three are required and restates the rrn1/rrn2 digit meanings, but it adds little beyond what the schema provides.
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 clearly states the tool verifies whether a Korean name and RRN match a real registered person, using a specific verb and resource. It is not explicitly differentiated from siblings like account_realname or hide_rrn, but the name/RRN scope is specific enough to avoid serious ambiguity.
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 description gives a clear usage condition: use it only when a lawful basis such as the data subject's consent has been secured. It does not discuss alternatives or explicit exclusions relative to sibling tools, but the legal precondition is actionable and important.
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.