Skip to main content
Glama

korea-realty

by app.sallim
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

[유료] 서울 재개발·재건축 사업장

realty_redevelopment
Read-onlyIdempotent

[유료] 서울시 정비사업(재개발·재건축·가로주택) 사업장 목록을 조회한다.

[유료] 서울시 정비사업(재개발·재건축·가로주택 등) 사업장 목록 — 사업명·유형·
진행 단계·위치. "○○구 재개발 어디까지 진행됐어?"류 질문용.

**커버리지는 서울 한정**(정보몽땅 원천) — 타 시도는 이 도구로 답할 수 없다고 밝혀라.
세대수·준공예정은 원천 목록이 제공하지 않아 null이다(지어내지 말 것). 진행 단계
필터는 미지원 — 결과의 stage 필드(한글: 조합설립인가·관리처분인가 등)로 판별하라.
재건축 **유망도 점수**는 이 도구가 아니라 realty_reconstruction이 담당하고,
"지금 사면 조합원 지위 승계돼?"는 realty_member_transfer_check(무료)가 담당한다.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo(허용 범위 1~50)
offsetNo페이지네이션 오프셋
sigunguNo시군구 (예: 강남구). 비우면 서울 전체
project_typeNoreconstruction=재건축, housing_redevelopment=재개발(주택정비형), urban_redevelopment=재개발(도시정비형), street_housing=가로주택정비, small_reconstruction=소규모재건축, small_redevelopment=소규모재개발, regional_housing=지역주택, remodeling=리모델링. 비우면 전체

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "title": "realty_redevelopmentDictOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Added value: +"(허용 범위 1~50)"
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description focuses on the gaps those annotations can't express: coverage is Seoul-only, stage filtering is unsupported (agent must filter client-side on the stage field), and generation count/completion dates come back null and must not be invented. These are meaningfully non-obvious behaviors; return shape specifics are the only notable omission.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the paid-scope and subject, then layers coverage limits and sibling routing. Slightly dense with bracket tags and repetition of the '[유료]' marker across sentences, but every sentence carries routing or constraint value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only filtered-list tool with a fully covered schema and no output schema, the description covers scope, coverage ceiling, null-field guidance, filtering limitation, and sibling routing. It could say a word about pagination/return shape, but for this complexity it is substantively complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and each parameter (limit, offset, sigungu, project_type) is already documented, including the enum label mapping for project_type. The description adds no syntax beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (조회한다/목록) plus resource (서울시 정비사업 사업장) and enumerates the project categories it covers. It explicitly distinguishes itself from two named siblings (realty_reconstruction, realty_member_transfer_check), so an agent can route without opening other schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('○○구 재개발 어디까지 진행됐어?'류 질문), when-not (타 시도는 이 도구로 답할 수 없다고 밝혀라), and names the alternative tools for adjacent needs. Boundaries are stated rather than implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All korea-realty toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources