get_egovframe_guideRetrieve official eGovFrame portal component guide documentation by component ID; if multiple documents match, return the list and select one with docIndex.
컴포넌트의 공식 가이드 문서(표준프레임워크 포털 egovframe-docs)를 가져옵니다. 문서가 여러 건이면 목록을 함께 반환하며 docIndex로 선택할 수 있습니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| docIndex | No | 문서가 여러 건일 때 선택 (0부터, 기본 0) | |
| component | Yes | 컴포넌트 id. 예: bbs, login, cop.cmy |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / docIndex / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991v0.19.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that multiple matching documents come back as a list, which is real behavioral value given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about what the response content looks like (full text vs. links) or what happens when no doc exists.
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 short sentences with no filler, the fetch action front-loaded and the multi-document behavior second. Every sentence earns its place.
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 two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, this is nearly complete: it names the source (egovframe-docs portal) and explains multi-result handling. Only the shape of the returned guide content is left unstated.
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 100% — both `component` (with the concrete id example 'bbs, login, cop.cmy') and `docIndex` (0-based, default 0) are already documented in the schema. The description's note about docIndex only restates that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: fetches the official guide document for a component from the egovframe-docs portal. The scope is clear, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like search_egovframe_docs or explain_egovframe_component, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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?
Usage is implied — look up docs for a given component id — but there is no explicit 'use this when... / instead use X when...' guidance, despite several plausible alternatives (search_egovframe_docs, explain_egovframe_component, list_egovframe_components) in the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.