KRA eTIMS MCP Server

explain_error_code

Diagnose KRA eTIMS error codes and get the cause, description, and concrete fix steps to resolve integration or device failures.

Instructions

Diagnose and resolve KRA eTIMS error codes (e.g., 000, 901, 903, 910, 994, TIS memory/clock codes). Returns cause, description, and concrete fix steps.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "explain_error_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes	The error code string returned by KRA API or TIS device (e.g. '901', '903', '910', '994', '11', '20')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does describe the response payload (cause, description, concrete fix steps), which is genuinely useful since no output schema exists, but it says nothing about behavior on unknown/invalid codes, whether it is purely a read/lookup, or coverage limits.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the return contract. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

For a one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece: what comes back (cause, description, fix steps). Only the edge-case behavior for unrecognized codes is left implicit.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single 'code' parameter is already fully documented with its own examples. The description's added examples (000, TIS memory/clock codes) marginally extend the schema's list but do not explain format or matching rules beyond it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb pair ('Diagnose and resolve') against a specific resource ('KRA eTIMS error codes') and enumerates representative codes. This separates it cleanly from generic siblings like search_knowledge_base or lookup_code, which do not promise diagnosis plus fix steps.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The usage context is clear: you invoke it when you hold a KRA API or TIS device error code and need a remedy. It stops short of explicit routing ('use X instead of lookup_code when...'), so there is no when-not guidance, but the trigger condition is unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server