Skip to main content
Glama

IBTCC 공기업 경쟁률 조회

convert_exam_score

G-TELP/오픽(OPIc)/토스(TOSS)-TOEIC 점수를 서로 환산합니다(점수대비표). 현재는 G-TELP·OPIc·TOSS → TOEIC 환산만 지원합니다(DB 조회 없는 순수 계산).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "exam_type": "<exam_type>",
      "score": "<score>"
    },
    "name": "convert_exam_score"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scoreYes원 점수/등급 (예: G-TELP는 "65", OPIc은 "IM2", TOSS는 "Lv5" 또는 등급문자)
exam_typeYes환산할 원 시험 종류

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses that the operation is a pure calculation with no DB access, i.e. side-effect free and deterministic. However it says nothing about behavior on out-of-range or malformed scores, nor about the shape of the returned conversion, which matters for a tool with no output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence covering purpose, supported exams, and current direction limit; the parenthetical '(점수대비표)' is slightly redundant but costs little. No filler or restating of the tool name.

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?

For a 2-parameter, no-output-schema tool this covers purpose, direction, and the no-DB nature adequately. The main gap is that there is no output schema and the description never hints at the return format or error cases for unsupported inputs.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself documents both parameters with concrete examples ('65', 'IM2', 'Lv5') plus an enum for exam_type. The description adds only the overall conversion direction, not parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (환산/converts) and resource (exam scores across G-TELP, OPIc, TOSS, TOEIC) and makes the direction explicit (only G-TELP·OPIc·TOSS → TOEIC). This clearly separates it from the lookup_* siblings, which fetch data rather than compute.

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?

Explicitly bounds the supported scope: 'currently only G-TELP·OPIc·TOSS → TOEIC is supported', so an agent knows a TOEIC→OPIc request would fail. It also notes there is no DB lookup, implying a deterministic offline computation, but it never names a sibling or states when to prefer this over them.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.