Reevl — Korean Real Estate

축·단위 안내

describe_fields

Read-onlyIdempotent

검색에 쓸 수 있는 모든 축과 단위, 값의 분포(최소·중위·최대)와 시도별 단지 수를 준다. ★조건 검색 전에 한 번 부르는 것을 권한다 — 단위를 모르고 범위를 넣으면 100배 틀린 조건이 된다 (예: 전세가율은 값 그대로 %, 세대당 대지지분은 10으로 나눠야 ㎡).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sido`	No	field=gu일 때 특정 시도로 좁힌다
`field`	No	이 축의 실제 값 목록을 받는다(sido·gu·dong·brand·builder 등 문자 축)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sido`	No	인자 없이 부르면 시도별 단지 수 배열, field를 주면 좁힌 시도 문자열
`count`	No
`field`	No	field 인자를 준 경우 그 축 이름
`total`	No	전체 단지 수
`units`	Yes	축 이름 → 단위·뜻 설명. 숫자를 옮길 때 이 값을 그대로 읽는다
`notice`	No	참고용 통계라는 고지. 투자 자문·중개가 아니다
`source`	Yes	데이터 출처와 갱신일
`values`	No	field 인자를 준 경우 그 축의 실제 값 목록
`dataset`	No
`filters`	No	쓸 수 있는 인자 목록(문자·수치·검색·페이징·정렬)
`endpoints`	No
`sido_note`	No
`stats_note`	No
`sido_aliases`	No	정식 명칭 → 사용할 값(예: '서울특별시' → '서울')
`numeric_stats`	No	수치 축의 최소·중위·최대. 범위를 정하기 전에 본다

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedAug 25, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "dataset": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "endpoints": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "field": {
+      "description": "field 인자를 준 경우 그 축 이름",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "filters": {
+      "description": "쓸 수 있는 인자 목록(문자·수치·검색·페이징·정렬)",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "notice": {
+      "description": "참고용 통계라는 고지. 투자 자문·중개가 아니다",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "numeric_stats": {
+      "description": "수치 축의 최소·중위·최대. 범위를 정하기 전에 본다",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "sido": {
+      "description": "인자 없이 부르면 시도별 단지 수 배열, field를 주면 좁힌 시도 문자열"
+    },
+    "sido_aliases": {
+      "description": "정식 명칭 → 사용할 값(예: '서울특별시' → '서울')",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "sido_note": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "source": {
+      "description": "데이터 출처와 갱신일",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "stats_note": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "total": {
+      "description": "전체 단지 수",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "units": {
+      "description": "축 이름 → 단위·뜻 설명. 숫자를 옮길 때 이 값을 그대로 읽는다",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "values": {
+      "description": "field 인자를 준 경우 그 축의 실제 값 목록",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "units",
+    "source"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedAug 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond this: it returns distribution stats, provides per-province counts, and exposes unit conversion pitfalls. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states what is returned, then gives a usage recommendation followed by a concrete example. Every sentence contributes and there is no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 2-parameter, 0-required metadata tool with an output schema, this description is complete enough to invoke. It tells the agent what it returns, when to call it, why it matters, and what pitfalls to avoid.

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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are already meaningfully described in the schema. The description does not add significant semantics beyond what the input-schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb ('준다') and resource: all searchable axes, units, value distributions (min/median/max), and counts by province. It is clearly a metadata/guide tool rather than a search tool, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly recommends calling the tool once before condition search, with a concrete reason and example showing how missing units can make range conditions 100x wrong. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement or a direct contrast with sibling tools, but the intended usage context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Reevl — Korean Real Estate tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?