시도·시군구 이름을 검색한다. 시군구 이름은 여러 시도에 겹친다(예: 중구, 동구, 서구). 지역 값을 조회하기 전에 이 도구로 정확한 '시도'와 '시군구' 짝을 먼저 확인할 것. keyword를 비우면 시도 목록만 돌려준다.
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_regions"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | No |
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 disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the empty-keyword behavior (returns only the province list) and the ambiguity of district names, but says nothing about matching semantics (substring vs. exact), result limits, or the shape of a non-empty result.
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?
Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by the disambiguation caveat, the ordering rule, and the empty-input edge case. The 중구/동구/서구 examples earn their place by making the ambiguity concrete.
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 one-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, and the default-input behavior, which is enough to call it correctly. It stops short of describing the return structure for non-empty keywords, leaving the agent to infer that pairs come back.
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 0% and the single parameter has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It does explain what an empty keyword yields and that the keyword is a name search, but it never states whether matching is partial or exact, or how the keyword combines with the returned pair.
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 description names a specific verb (검색한다/검색) and resource (시도·시군구 이름), and adds the scoping detail that district names overlap across provinces. That overlap note plus the 'confirm the exact pair first' line lets an agent tell this apart from the region-value querying tools without opening a schema.
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?
It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call this before querying region values, to resolve the correct 시도/시군구 pair. It does not name an alternative tool or state any when-not condition, so it falls short of a full routing statement.
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.