통신 모바일 인구이동량 통계의 정의와 이용 시 주의사항을 돌려준다. 다른 도구를 쓰기 전에 반드시 먼저 한 번 호출해서 읽을 것.
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": "get_metadata"
}
}| 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?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It makes clear this is a read-only informational call ('돌려준다') with no arguments, and the instruction to call it only once is real behavioral guidance not encoded anywhere else. It does not describe the shape of the returned metadata, which is the remaining gap.
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 with no filler: one says what is returned, the next says when to call it. The purpose is front-loaded and the prerequisite instruction follows immediately.
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 parameterless metadata tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it returns and the sequencing requirement, which is the information an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It does not sketch the returned content (format, language, length), which would have made it fully self-sufficient.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% for the empty object as well.
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 concrete verb and resource: it returns the definitions and usage cautions for the telecom mobile population-movement statistics. That is specific about content, and the second sentence positions it as a prerequisite to the other tools rather than a data-retrieval sibling. It does not name a particular sibling it might be confused with, but its role is unmistakable.
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?
Gives an explicit precondition: call this once, first, before using other tools. The 'once' qualifier also implies it should not be re-called per request. It stops short of naming any alternative or exclusion case, which keeps it below a 5.
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.