인증된 학생의 u-SAINT 장학금 수혜 내역을 조회합니다. year는 선택이며, 생략하면 조회 가능한 전체 내역을 반환합니다. mcp_session_id 필요(SAINT 로그인).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | 조회할 학년도(예: 2026). | |
| mcp_session_id | No | 선택 MCP session ID. 생략하면 현재 MCP transport에 안전하게 바인딩된 세션을 사용합니다. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / mcp_session_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"start_auth(SAINT)로 발급받은 MCP session ID. 없거나 SAINT 미연동이면 loginUrl과 함께 AUTH_REQUIRED를 반환."New value: +"선택 MCP session ID. 생략하면 현재 MCP transport에 안전하게 바인딩된 세션을 사용합니다."Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "mcp_session_id"
-]New value: +[]Input schema / properties / mcp_session_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"MCP session ID issued by start_auth(SAINT). If absent or SAINT not linked, returns AUTH_REQUIRED with a loginUrl."New value: +"start_auth(SAINT)로 발급받은 MCP session ID. 없거나 SAINT 미연동이면 loginUrl과 함께 AUTH_REQUIRED를 반환."Input schema / properties / year / descriptionPrevious value: -"Academic year, such as 2026."New value: +"조회할 학년도(예: 2026)."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context about authentication via SAINT login and the optional year behavior. However, it introduces some ambiguity by saying 'mcp_session_id 필요' while the schema marks it optional, which slightly weakens transparency.
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?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately followed by parameter behavior. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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?
For a simple read-only lookup with zero required parameters and a 100% schema-covered input schema, the description covers the essential context: who is eligible, what data is returned, and how optionality works. It does not specify response shape, but the absence of an output schema makes this a minor gap.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the schema: omitting year returns the full available history, and mcp_session_id is tied to SAINT login. This extra semantic context helps an agent choose and fill parameters correctly.
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?
Description states a specific verb (조회합니다/retrieve) and a specific resource (authenticated student's u-SAINT scholarship benefit history), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like check_scholarship_policy or get_my_grades.
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?
Clearly states the tool is for authenticated students and explains the optional year parameter behavior (omitting it returns all available records). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficient for the main use case.
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.