korea_mudflat_index
한국 갯벌 체험 지수 — 마을별 체험 가능 시작·종료 시각, 기온·풍속·날씨와 종합 판정. 물때에 맞춰 갯벌에 언제 들어갈 수 있는지 알려준다.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | YYYYMMDD. 생략하면 오늘(KST) | |
| limit | No | ||
| place | No | 마을명 일부 (예: "선감") |
Korea Ocean Leisure
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool provides start/end times, weather, wind speed, and a final recommendation based on tide conditions, giving a clear picture of behavior and output. It does not mention side effects or limitations, but for a read-only index tool this is sufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence that covers the tool's purpose, key inputs (village, date), and output aspects (times, weather, wind, judgment). No redundant or vague wording; it is efficient and directly informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, so the description must convey what the tool returns. It mentions start/end times, weather, wind, and overall judgment, which is enough for an agent to understand the response type. It does not specify the exact format (e.g., JSON structure), but given the niche use case, this level of detail is adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover 'date' with format and 'place' with example, but 'limit' has no description. The tool description itself adds no further clarification about parameters, especially 'limit'. With 67% schema coverage (2 of 3 parameters described), it falls in the middle; the description does not compensate for the missing 'limit' explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides a mudflat experience index, including available times, weather, wind, and overall judgment based on tides. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like beach or surfing indexes by explicitly naming 'mudflat' as the subject.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for mudflat-related queries but does not explicitly compare with alternatives (e.g., 'use this for mudflat, not beach'). Since it is part of a series of similar 'korea_*_index' tools, explicit guidance would help but is not provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.