search_term
특정 어휘를 지정하여 북한 용어사전에서 개별적으로 검색합니다.
Args:
query: 검색할 북한 용어 (부분 일치 지원)
csv_path: 사전 csv 파일 경로
Returns:
{용어: 설명} 형식의 파이썬 딕셔너리
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| csv_path | No | 북한용어사전.csv |
North korean dictionary(working)
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions partial match support and return format (dictionary), but lacks details on performance, error handling, or limits. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
Description is concise with clear sections for purpose, args, and returns. No superfluous text, front-loaded with main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool with few parameters. Return format is specified, but no output schema exists. No discussion of errors or edge cases. Sibling tool name suggests alternative but no comparison. Adequate for basic search.
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 coverage is 0%, so description compensates: 'query' described as search term with partial match, 'csv_path' as file path with default noted. Adds meaning beyond schema, but not extensive.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states verb 'search' and resource 'North Korean glossary', specifying individual search. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'extract_and_define', which may have a different search scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description explains what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus the sibling tool 'extract_and_define'. No exclusions or alternative contexts are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one extracts and defines terms from a text, the other searches for a specific term individually. There is no overlap in functionality, so an agent can easily select the appropriate tool.
Naming Consistency3/5
Both names use snake_case, but the patterns differ: 'extract_and_define' combines two verbs, while 'search_term' is verb_noun. This inconsistency, though minor, makes the naming pattern less predictable.
Tool Count3/5
With only 2 tools, the server feels minimal for a dictionary service. While both tools serve core lookup and extraction needs, the count is borderline and could benefit from additional tools like listing all terms or managing entries.
Completeness2/5
The tool surface covers extraction and individual lookup, but lacks common operations like listing all terms, adding or updating entries, or bulk retrieval. This incomplete coverage may cause agent failures when full dictionary management is needed.