OpenDART MCP Server

Does 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 states the tool 'provides information,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. The description lacks details on what specific data is returned (e.g., list of directors, dates, changes) or any behavioral traits beyond the basic purpose.

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 description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a structured Args section. There's minimal waste, though the Korean text might require translation for some users. The structure with bullet points for parameters enhances readability without unnecessary verbosity.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 required parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameter meanings, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., authentication, errors) and doesn't explain the output format. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but overall completeness is adequate with clear gaps in usage and transparency.

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 compensate. It adds parameter semantics by explaining each argument in Korean: corp_code (고유번호), bsns_year (사업연도), and reprt_code (보고서코드 with code mappings). This provides meaningful context beyond the schema's generic titles, but it doesn't fully detail formats (e.g., corp_code length validation) or optionality, leaving some gaps. With 0% schema coverage, the description does add value but not comprehensively.

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 states the tool's purpose: '사외이사 및 그 변동현황 - 정기보고서 내 사외이사 및 그 변동현황 정보를 제공합니다' translates to 'Outside directors and their change status - provides information on outside directors and their change status within regular reports.' This specifies the verb (provides information), resource (outside directors and their change status), and scope (within regular reports). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_executive_status or get_employee_status, which might cover related personnel data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools such as get_executive_status or get_employee_status that might handle similar corporate personnel information. Usage is implied through parameter descriptions but not explicitly stated.

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