OpenDART MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation ('정보를 제공합니다' - provides information) but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output contains. The description is functional but lacks important operational context needed for safe invocation.

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 description is efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Each sentence adds value, though the parameter section could be more integrated with the main description. There's no unnecessary verbosity, and information is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides adequate parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but for a tool with no annotations and moderate complexity, more operational guidance would be beneficial. The description is minimally complete but could be more comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides only parameter names without descriptions. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining: corp_code as '고유번호(8자리)' (unique 8-digit code), bsns_year as '사업연도(4자리, 2015년 이후)' (business year, 4 digits, 2015 onward), and reprt_code with specific code mappings. This compensates partially but doesn't fully document all parameter constraints or formats.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '임원 현황 - 정기보고서 내 임원 현황 정보를 제공합니다' (Executive status - provides executive status information within periodic reports). It specifies the verb '제공합니다' (provides) and resource '임원 현황 정보' (executive status information), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_executive_stockholding' or 'get_outside_director_status'.

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 description implies usage context by mentioning '정기보고서 내' (within periodic reports) and listing specific report codes, suggesting this tool is for retrieving executive data from formal corporate filings. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus similar executive-related tools or mention any prerequisites or alternatives.

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