nmjib_faq_searchSearch public FAQ pairs to retrieve the most relevant short answer, with source URL, for your query.
내만집 공개 문서에 실린 질문·답(FAQ) 수백 쌍에서 질문과 가장 가까운 것을 찾는다. 짧고 직접적인 답이 필요할 때 search 대신 쓴다. 각 답에 출처 URL 이 붙는다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | 질문(한국어) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it returns the closest matching question, each answer carries a source URL, and the scope is limited to indexed public FAQ pairs. That is meaningful behavioral disclosure since there is no output schema.
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 three tight sentences: it states the resource and operation, positions the tool relative to 'search', and ends with the return-attribution behavior. No filler words or redundant restating 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?
The tool is simple (2 params, no output schema) and the description covers the main behavior: finding closest FAQ pairs, source URLs on answers, and when to prefer it. The only small gap is the absence of explicit mention of the result-count behavior, but the schema's constraints on 'limit' largely cover that.
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?
The schema itself covers the 'query' parameter (Korean question text), leaving roughly 50% of the parameters undocumented—the 'limit' parameter has only type/constraints and no prose. The description does not explain 'limit' or add any parameter-specific meaning, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema description.
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 states a specific action and resource: finding the closest Q&A pair among the hundreds of FAQ pairs in the '내만집' public documents. It also differentiates the tool from the sibling 'search' by saying it is for short, direct answers, making the purpose unmistakable.
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 explicitly says to use this tool instead of 'search' when a short and direct answer is needed, naming the alternative. It does not provide an explicit 'when not to use' clause, but the guidance is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.