reservation_statusCheck reservation success, failure, and pending status. Get a summary of all watched reservations or detailed status and event logs for a specific watch.
예약 성공/실패/대기 상태를 확인합니다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| watch_id | No | 지정하면 해당 감시의 상세 상태 + 최근 이벤트 로그를 반환. 생략하면 전체 감시 목록 요약 + 성공한 예약 목록을 반환. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool checks status categories; it does not mention side effects, permissions, freshness, or what happens when no watch_id is given beyond what the schema already says.
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?
One short Korean sentence with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded. This is appropriately sized for a simple status tool whose only parameter is already fully documented in the schema.
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?
The optional parameter is fully documented and an output schema exists, so return values do not need to be described. However, with no annotations and no sibling differentiation, the description leaves the agent to infer when to use this tool and what behavioral guarantees exist.
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%, and the watch_id field description fully explains the conditional behavior (detailed status + event log vs. summary + successful reservations). The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific operation ('확인합니다' – checks) on a specific resource (reservation success/failure/pending status). It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from action-oriented siblings like approve_reservation and reserve_now, though it does not explicitly differentiate from list_reservation_watches.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus list_reservation_watches or other siblings. The input schema's conditional behavior (watch_id present vs omitted) provides parameter-level context, not tool-selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.