세션의 특정 키 값을 조회합니다.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"session_id": "<session_id>",
"key": "<key>"
},
"name": "scratchpad_read"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | 조회할 키 | |
| session_id | Yes | 세션 식별자 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 only states the operation ('look up value') and lacks detail on behavior for missing keys, return format, or guarantees that no side effects occur. It is truthful but minimal.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence conveys the entire purpose without redundancy. Every word earns its place.
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 simple read tool with two well-documented parameters, the description adequately conveys the core operation and implies the return value. However, since there is no output schema, it could better specify the return format or behavior when a key is absent.
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 100% with both 'session_id' and 'key' described. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 '세션의 특정 키 값을 조회합니다' provides a specific verb (조회/query) and resource (specific key value in the session). It clearly indicates a read operation and is distinguishable from sibling tools like scratchpad_write and scratchpad_delete, though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of scratchpad_list, diff, or write. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name.
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.