search_egovframe_componentsSearch eGovFrame common components by keyword across IDs, names, descriptions, and categories; get the top 10 scored matches for project scaffolding.
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.
v1.6.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.19.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the safety hints provided in the annotations by disclosing critical operational behaviors. Specifically, it reveals that the search performs partial matching across the ID, name, description, and category fields, which is vital behavioral context.
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 definition is a single, highly efficient sentence. It front-loads the core function and immediately provides the crucial operational constraints (what it matches and how many results are returned), leaving no superfluous words.
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?
Given that this is a search tool, the description is complete. It defines the resource being searched (components), the input type (keyword), and the output constraints (partial match, top 10). No major context is missing for an agent to use it effectively.
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?
While the schema defines `query` as a simple string, the description clarifies its semantics—it is used for partial matching across four different attributes (id, name, description, category). This context dramatically enhances the utility of the parameter definition.
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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: searching common components by keyword. It distinguishes this from listing tools by detailing the scope (Top 10) and matching criteria.
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 dictates exactly how the tool operates (partial match on four fields, limited results). This operational clarity helps the agent choose this tool when the user expects a specific, filtered result rather than an exhaustive search, making it highly practical.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.