제주 아파트 실거래 시세 통계입니다. 근거는 국토교통부 실거래 신고 데이터(호가 아님). region 없이 호출하면 통계 제공 가능한 지역 목록을 반환합니다. 표본이 부족한 지역은 suppressed=true 와 사유·대안 지역(fallback_region)을 반환하니, 그 경우 "데이터가 없다"가 아니라 표본 부족을 안내하고 대안 지역으로 재질의하세요.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | No | 동/읍/면 이름 또는 '제주시'/'서귀포시' (생략 시 지역 목록) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description carries the burden well: it discloses data provenance, clarifies it is not asking-price data, and reveals important edge-case behavior (suppressed=true with reason and fallback_region), plus the expected user-facing handling ('표본 부족' vs '데이터가 없다').
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?
Three short sentences in logical order: core promise, no-region branch, and edge-case branch. Every sentence adds information and there is no filler.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main invocation branches and fallback handling well. It is slightly incomplete because it does not specify the shape of the successful stats response (e.g., metric fields, period), but the low complexity and clear branch guidance keep it strong.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the region parameter is already fully documented; the description restates the omit-to-list behavior without adding new parameter syntax or formatting. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 states a concrete verb-resource pair: providing Jeju apartment real transaction price statistics based on MOLIT reported data, explicitly distinguishing '시세' from '호가'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling stats tools like get_ad_stats and get_site_stats.
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 calling conditions: omit region to get the list of supported regions, and re-query via fallback_region when suppressed=true. It does not name sibling alternatives or explicitly say when not to use this tool, so it stops short of 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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or workflow (posts, facilities, jobs, property, personas, stats), and descriptions clarify normal-user vs persona posting and feed vs keyword vs by-ID retrieval. The only mild overlap is create_post vs post_as_persona, both create posts, but the persona-specific flow is clearly documented.
Tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, search_, create_, upsert_). Minor deviations are find_facilities instead of search_facilities and post_as_persona as a prepositional verb, but these are easy to predict.
16 tools is slightly above the typical well-scoped 3-15 range, but the breadth reflects multiple verticals (community posts, jobs, property, facilities, stats). Each tool has a role, so the count feels reasonable rather than bloated.
The set covers read/search/create for posts and upsert/search for jobs and property, plus supporting listings and stats. However, there are no update/delete operations for posts or personas, no comment tools despite comment counts being mentioned, and no delete for structured listings, leaving notable lifecycle gaps.