Skip to main content
Glama

IBTCC 공기업 경쟁률 조회

lookup_competition_ratio

한국 공공기관(공기업) 채용 경쟁률을 기관명으로 조회합니다. 알리오(ALIO) 공시 데이터 기반으로, 해당 기관의 최근 채용 건별 1차 지원자 수와 1차 경쟁률을 반환합니다.

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": {
      "institution": "<institution>"
    },
    "name": "lookup_competition_ratio"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo반환할 최근 채용 건수 (기본 3건, 최대 10건)
institutionYes기관명 (예: 한국전력공사, 국민연금공단, 한국철도공사)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / institution / maxLength
      Added value: +60
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the data source (ALIO) and the exact return content (first-round applicant count and competition ratio per recent posting), which is useful. However, it omits error behavior for unknown institution names and any freshness/caching limits of the disclosure data.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the data provenance and return values. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description compensates well by naming the returned fields and data source, and the two params are fully covered by the schema. It is only missing edge-case behavior such as handling of unmatched institution names.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the limit default of 3 and max of 10. The description's '기관명으로' and '최근 채용 건별' echo this without adding format or matching semantics (e.g., partial name matching) beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (조회) and resource (공공기관 채용 경쟁률) plus the data source (알리오/ALIO) and what is returned. It is distinguishable from siblings like lookup_job_posting by resource, but it never explicitly names an alternative to route the agent.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance is given. The agent must infer context from the resource name alone; there is no condition or prerequisite stated.

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.