get_restaurant가게 id로 주소, 영업 햇수, 인허가 기록(최초·승계·재신고), 확인할 점을 봅니다.
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": {
"id": "<id>"
},
"name": "get_restaurant"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 가게 id(예: s_6ed1b96dc2) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds real value by specifying the returned evidence categories (licensing record types, years in business), which is the main behavioral thing an agent needs from a lookup tool with no output schema.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the keying mechanism, then the payload. No filler, no repetition of the title or annotations.
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 one-parameter, non-destructive lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the return contents, which is what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. Slight gap in not stating what happens for an unknown id.
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?
A single parameter with 100% schema description coverage including an example format (s_6ed1b96dc2), so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates 'by restaurant id' without adding format or validation detail beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb (봅니다) and resource (가게) and enumerates exactly what the lookup returns: address, years in business, licensing records (initial/succession/re-report), and points to check. This clearly differentiates it as a by-id detail lookup versus the find_* siblings, though those siblings are not named.
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 phrase '가게 id로' implies an id must already be known, which hints that a find_* call should precede this one, but the description never says when to use this versus find_restaurants_near or find_long_running_restaurants. Usage is only implied, not stated.
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.