Search Korean tourist attractions, restaurants and accommodations in ENGLISH (Korea Tourism Organization official English dataset). Use this when the user is not Korean-speaking or wants English place names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 10, max 50) | |
| keyword | No | Search keyword in English (e.g. "Gyeongbokgung", "beach") | |
| areaCode | No | Area code. 1=Seoul 6=Busan 32=Gangwon 39=Jeju |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral context. It discloses that this is the official English KTO dataset and that results are in English, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination, result limits, or whether the operation is strictly read-only, though 'Search' implies it.
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?
The description is two efficient sentences with the key scoping constraint (English dataset) front-loaded)Skip. No fluff or redundancy.
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 search tool with well-documented parameters, the description provides enough context: what is searched, in which language, and when to choose it. It lacks explicit mention of the Korean alternative but otherwise is complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.
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 parameters are already explained. The description reinforces the English-language aspect but doesn't add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema.
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 clearly states a specific action ('Search'), a concrete resource ('Korean tourist attractions, restaurants and accommodations'), and the English-language dataset. This makes it easy to distinguish from its sibling tool, korea_tour_search, which likely serves the Korean-language counterpart.
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 explicitly says when to use this tool: 'when the user is not Korean-speaking or wants English place names.' It does not explicitly name the alternative korea_tour_search or state when not to use this tool, but the intended context is clear.
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.