Retrieve the actual attachment file list for a course material by ID; choose a fileId when multiple files exist, and set refresh=true to recheck links from the original school source.
자료의 실제 첨부 파일 목록을 조회합니다. 여러 파일이면 fileId를 선택하세요. refresh=true는 학교 원문에서 링크를 다시 확인합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| refresh | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a state-affecting, network-touching call. The description usefully adds that refresh=true re-verifies links against the school source, which explains the non-read-only/idempotent profile, but says nothing about latency, auth requirements, or what changes on refresh.
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?
Three short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Slightly terse for the amount of unexplained behavior, but appropriately sized.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should describe what the returned attachment list contains (fileIds? names? download keys), especially since it tells the agent to 'choose a fileId'. It also leaves the mismatch between '조회' and readOnlyHint=false unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool the agent must chain from.
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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It documents refresh well ('refresh=true re-checks links from the school source') but never explains the required id parameter or the ubfile/resource/folder/file prefix forms allowed by the schema pattern. Half the parameters remain opaque.
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 names a specific verb and resource: it retrieves the actual attached-file list for one material, which distinguishes it from the sibling list-style tools (list_materials, search_materials). It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives downstream guidance ('if multiple files, choose fileId') and explains the refresh flag's purpose, implying when to use it, but never states when to prefer this over get_item, list_materials, or read_material. Usage is inferred rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.