list_value_chains공개된 산업 밸류체인(반도체·2차전지 등) 목록과 사슬별 공정 단계 수·종목 수. slug 를 get_value_chain_map 에 넣는다.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_value_chains"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful disclosure about payload contents (per-chain process-stage counts and stock counts), which no output schema provides. It does not say whether the list is exhaustive or cached, keeping it below a 5.
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?
Two short sentences, zero waste, and the payload description is front-loaded before the follow-up action. The telegraphic Korean fragments ('slug 를 get_value_chain_map 에 넣는다') trade a little polish for density but stay unambiguous.
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 no-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the definition covers what comes back and how it connects to the next call, which is what an agent needs. Minor omissions (whether all chains are returned, ordering) are low-risk here.
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?
There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4; nothing about argument meaning needs explaining. The description still clarifies that the returned 'slug' is the key consumed by get_value_chain_map, which is semantics beyond the empty 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 and resource ('공개된 산업 밸류체인 목록') and even enumerates what each entry carries (사슬별 공정 단계 수·종목 수) plus example domains (반도체·2차전지). This clearly separates it from the sibling get_value_chain_map, which takes a slug rather than listing chains.
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 second sentence routes the agent explicitly: take the slug and pass it to get_value_chain_map. That is a concrete use-then-next-step instruction. It lacks an explicit exclusion ('do not use if you already have a slug'), but the workflow cue is strong for a zero-parameter list tool.
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.