search_egovframe_componentsSearch eGovFrame common components by keyword to find matching IDs, names, descriptions, and categories, returning top 10 results by relevance score.
키워드로 공통컴포넌트를 검색합니다 (id·이름·설명·카테고리 부분 일치, 점수순 상위 10건).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | 검색어. 예: 게시판, bbs, 로그인 | |
| category | No | 카테고리 필터 (cmm|cop|uss|sym|sec|utl|dam|ext|ssi|sts|uat) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.19.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: partial-match fields and a scored top-10 result cap. It does not, however, describe the return shape, which matters given 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?
A single front-loaded sentence that packs verb, resource, matching semantics, and result limit with zero filler. Every clause 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 2-param, 100%-schema-covered search tool with no output schema, the description covers matching behavior and the result cap. It would be slightly more complete if it described the returned component fields, but the essentials are present.
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%, so both parameters are documented in the schema (query examples; category enum-ish list). The description still adds value beyond the schema by naming which fields are partially matched (id/name/description/category) and confirming that category matching is part of the search semantics, not just a filter.
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 (검색/search) and resource (공통컴포넌트/common components) plus scope: partial match on id/name/description/category, top 10 by score. It is clear what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_egovframe_components, leaving the search-vs-list choice to inference.
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 keyword-based framing implies you use this when you have a search term, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and the natural alternative (list_egovframe_components) is never mentioned. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.