Check direct school connection status and supported formats without Chrome, or set verify=true to connect and validate your session. Do not pass passwords or cookies as tool arguments.
Chrome을 사용하지 않는 학교 직접 연결 상태와 지원 형식. verify=true만 서버에 접속해 세션을 검증합니다. 비밀번호나 쿠키를 도구 인자로 보내지 마세요.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| verify | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world, but the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: only verify=true causes server contact and session validation, and the credential-handling constraint ('do not pass passwords or cookies as arguments') is an explicit safety rule not expressed anywhere in the 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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool is, then the verify behavior, then the credential prohibition. No filler; each sentence carries distinct information.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description gestures at return content (connection status and supported format) but never states what a status response looks like, nor whether authentication must already exist for verify=true to succeed. Coverage is adequate but leaves an operational gap for a network-facing tool.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the single parameter — and it does, explaining that verify=true is the only mode that reaches the server and validates the session, implying the false default is a passive status read. It stops short of describing return shape but the flag semantics are clear.
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?
Names the resource (school direct connection status and supported formats) and the distinguishing trait ('Chrome을 사용하지 않는' – the non-browser direct path), which separates it from the browser-based login flow implied by the sibling start_school_login. There is no explicit verb, but the intent is recoverable.
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 only implied: the reader infers this checks connection status rather than performing a login, and that verify=true triggers actual server contact. The sibling start_school_login is never named as an alternative, so the agent must guess the boundary between 'check connection' and 'start login'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.