Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
청약 도우미

청약 도우미

by ANNJUNGCHAN
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

housing_candidate_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve paginated summaries of saved housing subscription candidates to review shortlisted options, then fetch full source details or memos by candidate ID.

Instructions

본인이 저장한 후보 요약을 페이지로 조회합니다. 상세 원문·메모는 후보 ID로 조회하세요.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "housing_candidate_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
offsetNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of real context not in the annotations - results are limited to the caller's own saved candidates - but says nothing about ordering, page exhaustion, or what a summary contains, which matters for paging loops.

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 short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the alternative trailing it. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only paginated list with full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose and scope adequately. However, with no output schema, it should say more about the shape of a candidate summary (fields returned, ordering) so the agent knows what it will get back before calling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, yet it only implies pagination via '페이지로' and never explains limit vs offset, the default of 20, or the max of 50. The schema's min/max/default constraints help, but the description does not compensate for the missing descriptions.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource (저장한 후보 요약을 페이지로 조회) and constrains scope to the caller's own saved items (본인이 저장한). It distinguishes itself from the detail-lookup sibling by telling the agent to fetch 상세 원문·메모 by candidate ID, though it stops short of naming housing_candidate_get explicitly.

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?

It states the use case (browsing summaries page by page) and implicitly routes the agent away from detail retrieval toward the ID-based tool. There are no explicit exclusions or prerequisite notes, but the when-to-use condition is clear.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools