realty_poi_stats[유료] 시군구별 병원·학교·지하철역 개수 통계를 조회한다. 지역 간 인프라 비교용.
지역 키는 '시도축약 시군구' 2토큰이다(예: '서울 마포구', 세종은 1토큰). 병원·지하철은
수집 범위가 수도권·광역시 중심이라 지방 시군구는 0으로 나올 수 있다 — 0을 "없다"로
단정하지 말고 수집 범위 밖일 수 있다고 말하라.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | (허용 범위 1~50) | |
| region | No | 지역명 — 시도는 정식명·축약 모두 받는다(예: 서울, 경상남도 고성군, 경남 고성군, 마포구). 토큰 정확일치라 '남구'에 강남구가 섞이지 않는다. 비우면 전국 전체 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / region / descriptionPrevious value: -"지역명 접두 일치 (예: 서울, 서울 마포구, 마포구). 비우면 전국 전체"New value: +"지역명 — 시도는 정식명·축약 모두 받는다(예: 서울, 경상남도 고성군, 경남 고성군, 마포구). 토큰 정확일치라 '남구'에 강남구가 섞이지 않는다. 비우면 전국 전체"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "realty_poi_statsDictOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullInput schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"(허용 범위 1~50)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. On top of that the description discloses a genuine data-coverage limitation (지방 시군구 may return 0 due to collection scope) and instructs how to phrase results, which is real behavioral context not present in any structured field.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by the region-key rule and the zero-value caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information; the only slight cost is the somewhat fragmented multi-paragraph layout for a two-parameter tool.
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 read-only, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, region key format, limit behavior is handled by the schema, and the key interpretation pitfall (zeros). Nothing critical to a correct call is missing, though return shape is only implied.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by specifying the exact region key format ('시도축약 시군구' 2 tokens, 세종 as 1 token), which is format guidance the schema does not state, and reinforces that empty input means nationwide.
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 first sentence gives a precise verb and resource: counts of hospitals, schools, and subway stations aggregated per 시군구, scoped as a paid tool. The '지역 간 인프라 비교용' framing implicitly separates it from the per-POI sibling realty_poi_nearby, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
States the use case clearly (cross-region infrastructure comparison) and gives a meaningful usage constraint: don't interpret 0 counts as absence because collection is centered on 수도권/광역시. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition.
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.