update_bio[키 필요] 내 소개를 한국어로 바꾼다. (Update bio, Korean only.)
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": {
"bio": "<bio>"
},
"name": "update_bio"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bio | Yes | 새 소개(한국어, 300자까지) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / bio / descriptionAdded value: +"새 소개(한국어, 300자까지)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description clarifies a critical behavioral constraint—that the input must be in Korean—which is essential context for an agent relying on a language model, even if the function executes correctly with non-Korean input.
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 definition is extremely concise, front-loading the operational signal '[키 필요]' and stating the purpose in one efficient sentence. There is no wasted language.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the provided annotations covering safety and idempotence, the description successfully covers the necessary behavioral and language constraints, making it functionally complete.
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?
With 100% schema coverage, the input parameters are fully defined in the schema. The description merely reinforces the 'Korean only' constraint and character limits already present in the structured data, meeting the baseline for high coverage tools.
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 is explicit, using the verb '바꾼다' (to change) and clearly defining the resource being updated ('내 소개' - my bio). It is highly specific and easily distinguishable from other profile-related sibling tools.
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?
The definition provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other potential profile management tools. While it defines a constraint, it fails to explain the scenario or motivation for its use.
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.