한국관광공사 국문 관광정보에서 관광지·음식점·숙박·축제를 키워드 또는 지역으로 검색한다. 실데이터(주소·좌표·전화·사진)를 반환한다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | 최대 건수 (기본 10, 최대 50) | |
| keyword | No | 검색 키워드 (예: "해운대", "한옥마을"). areaCode 와 함께 쓰거나 단독으로 쓴다 | |
| areaCode | No | 지역코드. 1=서울 6=부산 32=강원 39=제주 등. korea_area_codes 로 조회 | |
| contentTypeId | No | 12=관광지 14=문화시설 15=축제 25=여행코스 28=레포츠 32=숙박 38=쇼핑 39=음식점 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that real data (address, coordinates, phone, photos) is returned, implying a live data source, which is genuinely useful. But it omits auth needs, rate limits, pagination, error behavior, or confirmation that this is a read-only call.
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 Korean sentences with zero filler. Purpose is front-loaded and return data is stated second. Efficient and to the point.
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 moderate-complexity search tool with no output schema, it usefully states what data comes back. However, with no annotations the behavioral profile (pagination, limits, live-call latency) is missing, and it could better connect to the area-code lookup tool.
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%, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds minor value by mapping 'keyword or region' to the keyword/areaCode search modes and enumerating content types, but it doesn't add syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already documents.
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 specific verb+resource: searching KTO (한국관광공사) tourism info by keyword or region, listing content types (관광지·음식점·숙박·축제). The '국문' qualifier explicitly separates it from korea_tour_search_en. Clear purpose though it doesn't name its sibling counterparts directly.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to guidance. The description never mentions alternatives like korea_tour_search_en for English content, korea_area_codes for code lookup, or korea_bus_cities/stops for transit. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the sibling list and schema.
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.