egovframe-scaffold-mcp

프로젝트 진단

diagnose_egovframe_project

Read-onlyIdempotent

Scan existing eGovFrame projects to detect build system, RTE version, DbType, common components, and configuration issues without altering files.

Instructions

기존(스캐폴딩 도구로 만들지 않은 것 포함) 전자정부 표준프레임워크 프로젝트를 스캔해 빌드시스템·RTE 버전·DbType·설치된 공통컴포넌트(카탈로그 pathPrefixes 지문)·설정 문제를 진단합니다. 디스크를 변경하지 않는 읽기 전용입니다.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectDir`	Yes	진단할 프로젝트 디렉터리(절대경로 권장)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`issues`	Yes
`aiLayer`	Yes
`database`	Yes
`projectDir`	Yes
`buildSystem`	Yes
`egovVersion`	Yes
`hasManifest`	Yes
`suggestions`	Yes
`isEgovProject`	Yes
`detectedComponents`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.36.1Oct 4, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "aiLayer": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "buildSystem": {
+      "enum": [
+        "maven",
+        "gradle",
+        "unknown"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "database": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "detectedComponents": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "properties": {
+          "id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "matchedPrefix": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "id",
+          "name",
+          "matchedPrefix"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "egovVersion": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "hasManifest": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "isEgovProject": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "issues": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "projectDir": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "suggestions": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "projectDir",
+    "isEgovProject",
+    "buildSystem",
+    "egovVersion",
+    "database",
+    "detectedComponents",
+    "aiLayer",
+    "hasManifest",
+    "issues",
+    "suggestions"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Addedv0.19.0Jul 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description's '디스크를 변경하지 않는 읽기 전용입니다' largely restates that, though it usefully enumerates the diagnostic dimensions (build system, RTE version, DbType, components, config). It adds little beyond the annotations about failure modes or output.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, with the diagnostic scope front-loaded and the read-only caveat last. Dense but no filler; the only minor cost is the redundant read-only statement already covered by annotations.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a single-parameter read-only diagnostic the description covers what is inspected and that it is non-mutating, leaving only the sibling-routing question (validate vs diagnose) unresolved.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents projectDir (including the absolute-path recommendation). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (스캔/진단) and resource (전자정부 표준프레임워크 프로젝트), and enumerates what is inspected: build system, RTE version, DbType, installed common components via catalog pathPrefixes, and config problems. It also clarifies it covers pre-existing/non-scaffolded projects. It never distinguishes itself from the close sibling validate_egovframe_project, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The parenthetical noting it also handles projects not created by the scaffolding tools implies the when-to-use context (existing projects) versus create_egovframe_project, but no explicit alternative or exclusion is named. The agent must infer whether to pick diagnose_egovframe_project or validate_egovframe_project.

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